We are using conative screenings like the Kolbe Index and Culture Index to help us build our Accountability Chart, but we are struggling to translate these psychometric scores into clear GWC™ decisions for our core operational seats. How do we use these tools to objectively prove whether a person truly has the capacity for a seat?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Conative and behavioral screenings like the Kolbe Index and Culture Index are incredibly powerful tools, but they do not replace the GWC™ framework. Instead, they provide objective data to help you evaluate the Capacity portion of the equation.

Get It and Want It are emotional and intellectual states. A person either truly understands the seat and has a genuine, self-motivated desire to do it, or they do not. Behavioral tests cannot measure this intrinsic commitment.

Capacity, however, is heavily influenced by a person's conative wiring. If a seat requires deep analytical research and systematic organization, a person with a low Kolbe Follow Thru score will find the work draining and will likely fail over time. The conative friction will destroy their capacity.

Use these assessment scores to build objective profiles for your critical seats. Compare your candidates' natural problem-solving styles against the actual demands of the seat. If the behavioral data shows a major misalignment, it is a strong indicator that the person lacks the long-term capacity for the seat, even if they claim they want it. Use this data to make unbiased, preventative decisions before placing names in seats.