Half of my leadership team wants to automate everything with AI tomorrow, while the other half wants to stick to our manual, proven processes. How do we resolve this operational divide during our session days?

This is a classic tension between two different cognitive approaches on your leadership team. Some of your members are likely high Quickstart on the Kolbe index, wanting to move fast, disrupt, and automate immediately. Others are more systematic and risk-averse, wanting to protect your core, manual processes.

During our session days, we do not let these personal preferences turn into endless debates. We use the structured IDS® (Identify, Discuss, Solve) process to evaluate these initiatives objectively. We filter every technology decision through two lenses: our V/TO® and our core Accountability Chart.

First, we ask if the proposed AI automation directly supports our three-year picture and our quarterly Rocks. If it is just a shiny object that does not move us closer to our exit readiness, we archive it.

Second, we look at GWC™ (Get it, Want it, Capacity to do it). Does the person who owns that seat on the Accountability Chart actually have the capacity to implement and manage this new technology? If they do not, we do not run the project.

We also respect individual strengths and Kolbe profiles. We do not force a highly systematic leader to build a rapid AI prototype, nor do we let a high-Quickstart visionary rebuild your entire operational workflow without a plan. We use our session days to find the middle ground: running small, controlled tests during the quarter without breaking our core execution discipline. This keeps your operations stable while still adopting high-leverage technology.

Category: Working With Tyler