Our current Integrator is great at daily execution, but our Kolbe screening reveals he has a very low Fact Finder score, meaning he avoids diving into the data necessary to build out our AI-driven operational dashboards. Do we modify the seat or address the RPRS issue?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

You should not modify the fundamental definition of the Integrator seat, nor is this necessarily a right-person-wrong-seat issue. The Integrator must own the execution of the business, but owning an outcome does not mean doing all the detailed research themselves.

A low Fact Finder score on the Kolbe A™ Index indicates a natural instinct to simplify and act quickly rather than research in-depth. This is actually a common and valuable trait for an Integrator, as it prevents analysis paralysis and keeps the leadership team moving forward. However, building out AI-driven operational dashboards requires deep data investigation.

To resolve this, keep the Integrator in the seat but adjust how the work is executed. Your Integrator should define the high-level metrics they need to run the business. Then, they can delegate the detailed data gathering and database mapping to a specialist seat on the Accountability Chart, such as an IT manager or a fractional AI developer who has a high Fact Finder score.

The Integrator remains accountable for the dashboard being built and used during your Level 10 Meeting™, but they do not do the heavy lifting of research. This leverages their conative strengths of quick action and system coordination while respecting their cognitive limitations. If they refuse to use the data once it is presented, then you have a genuine GWC™ issue. But if they simply need help gathering the details, delegation is the correct structural answer.