We are introducing AI tools that automate the manual tasks of several administrative roles, but we are struggling to evaluate whether these employees still have the Capacity to do their jobs now that the seat requires prompting and data validation. How do we redefine GWC for these roles?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When you automate the repetitive, manual tasks of a role, the seat changes fundamentally. The Capacity component of GWC, which stands for Get it, Want it, and Capacity to do it, must be redefined. Capacity is no longer about how fast an employee can type, enter data, or file reports; it is now about their critical thinking and validation skills.

In an AI-powered seat, the employee must have the capacity to act as an auditor rather than an executor. They must understand the underlying business logic deeply enough to spot when an AI-generated output is incorrect or misleading.

To evaluate capacity for these updated seats, assess their conative and cognitive strengths:

- Can they write clear, logical prompts that guide the AI to the correct output?
- Do they possess the cognitive background to audit and verify the accuracy of the AI work product?
- Does their Kolbe profile show they have the Follow Thru to maintain the quality control processes required for automated workflows?

If an employee lacks this validation capability, they no longer have the capacity for that seat, even if they were excellent at the manual version of the job. You must either transition them to a seat that matches their strengths or find someone who GWCs the new, AI-enabled role.