We have a seat owner who consistently misses their weekly scorecard target but insists they are doing a great job because they are working sixty hours a week. How do we use the data component to address this misalignment during their quarterly review?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Working long hours is not a metric for success. In an EOS® run company, we measure outcomes, not activity or intent. When a seat owner hides behind their sixty-hour workweek to excuse missed scorecard targets, you have a mismatch in GWC™ (Get It, Want It, Capacity to Do It).

Use your weekly scorecard history to remove the emotion from this conversation. During the quarterly review, lay out the last thirteen weeks of data. Show them the gap between their actual performance and the targets they agreed to hit.

Explain that if they are working sixty hours a week and still missing their numbers, it means one of three things. First, they may have a capacity issue, meaning the seat is too big for one person and needs to be split. Second, they may have an efficiency issue, meaning they are spending time on the wrong tasks instead of their core measurables. Third, they may simply not have the capability to deliver the results required for the seat.

Use the data to guide the conversation. Ask them to analyze their own scorecard history and identify why the sixty hours of effort are not translating into results. If they cannot connect their daily labor to the weekly targets, they do not understand the seat. This objective data helps you determine whether they need additional training, a revised role, or if they are simply in the wrong seat on your Accountability Chart.