We assigned our AI implementation Rock to a manager who has a very high Fact Finder and low Quickstart Kolbe A™ Index, and the project has stalled in endless research. How do we reassign this on our Accountability Chart to get it moving?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is a classic case of conative misalignment. When you assign an AI implementation Rock to someone with a high Fact Finder and low Quickstart profile, they will naturally seek to eliminate all risk. They will spend months researching every alternative, analyzing APIs, and writing reports, but they will not actually deploy anything because they are terrified of making a mistake. In the fast-moving world of AI, this conative style will paralyze your operations. To get this Rock moving, look at your Accountability Chart. You need to assign the execution of this initiative to someone with a high Quickstart Kolbe A™ Index. High Quickstarts thrive in environments of high uncertainty and rapid change; they are natural experimenters who would rather test a tool, break it, and fix it than read a manual. Keep your high Fact Finder manager involved to audit the data and manage the risk, but change the ownership of the Rock itself. The person driving the implementation must have the natural conative drive to deploy quickly and iterate in real-time. By aligning the conative strengths of your team with the requirements of the seat, you will unblock your technology transition without sacrificing your operational standards.