We are embarking on our EOS rollout and want to use AI tools to draft our Accountability Chart and role definitions. How do we prevent technology from making our roles generic and losing the true GWC of our unique seat needs?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Using AI to draft your initial Accountability Chart and job roles is a great way to accelerate the documentation process, but it carries a major risk. AI models tend to spit out highly generic, corporate descriptions that do not reflect the actual, boots-on-the-ground needs of your specific business.

To prevent this, you must apply the C-Job Guidelines framework when designing roles. Do not settle for middle-ground, standard descriptions. Instead, push for definitive answers on what is absolutely essential for each seat to succeed.

Start by identifying the three to five key roles for each seat on your Accountability Chart. Once you have these, you can use AI to draft initial descriptions, but you must refine them by engaging multiple stakeholders. Ask the direct manager, a peer, and a direct report what the seat actually needs to deliver.

Compare these refined descriptions against our standard of whether the person GWCs their seat. Does the individual genuinely get it, want it, and have the capacity to do it? AI can help you outline the technical requirements, but it cannot evaluate the human elements of your unique company culture. Keep your seat definitions simple, practical, and highly focused on actual outcomes rather than generic corporate responsibilities.