Our Integrator wants to deploy a suite of AI automation tools across our customer fulfillment team, but our operations supervisor is highly resistant and defensive. How do we use the Kolbe A™ Index to determine if this resistance is an innate conative mismatch with the changing role or if they simply lack the GWC™ for the seat?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Before you assume a resisting employee lacks the GWC™ for their seat, you must understand their conative makeup. The Kolbe A™ Index measures an individual's instinctive way of taking action, which is distinct from their intelligence or emotional preferences. A high Fact Finder and high Follow Through personality thrives on systematic order, detailed processes, and predictable outcomes. When you introduce rapid, unstructured AI changes, these natural stabilizers will instinctively push back, not because they are stubborn, but because their natural talent is to protect operational stability. To resolve this friction, look at their Kolbe profile. If your operations supervisor is a strong stabilizer, they will resist any tool that feels like a black box with unpredictable outputs. They need to understand the underlying logic of the system before they can support it. Use your next Level 10 Meeting™ to IDS® this bottleneck. Ask the supervisor to help you design the manual auditing process for the AI's outputs, which leverages their natural talent for detail and quality control. However, if their Kolbe profile shows they are highly resistant to any deviation from historical methods, and they refuse to learn how to operate the new system even after receiving structured training, they likely do not have the capacity for the evolving seat. By separating conative talent from performance, you can objectively decide whether to adjust their role on the Accountability Chart or find someone who better fits the new reality.