The People Component: Getting the Right People in the Right Seats

You know the person. They’ve been with your company for years, everyone likes them personally, and they work hard. But somehow, they’re always struggling to keep up. Projects get delayed. Quality slips. Other team members quietly work around them to get things done.

Or maybe it’s the opposite problem—someone who delivers excellent work but creates tension wherever they go. They hit their numbers but leave a trail of frustrated colleagues and damaged relationships.

These situations are painful because they involve good people who simply aren’t in the right seats. The People component of EOS provides a framework for addressing these challenges with clarity and compassion.

After implementing EOS people tools in our own business and helping clients do the same, we’ve learned that most “people problems” aren’t actually about the people—they’re about fit.

Beyond the Traditional Org Chart

Most companies organize around personalities rather than functions. The org chart shows who reports to whom, but it doesn’t clarify what anyone actually does. Job descriptions are either nonexistent or so generic they could apply to anyone.

EOS introduces the Accountability Chart, which focuses on functions first, people second. Instead of building boxes around existing employees, you define what the business needs, then figure out who should fill each role.

The Accountability Chart starts with three foundational seats that exist in every business:

Visionary: The person who sees the big picture, identifies opportunities, and sets direction. Usually the founder or CEO, but not always.

Integrator: The person who takes the vision and makes it reality through systems, processes, and people management. Often called the COO or general manager.

Sales: The person responsible for finding and closing new business.

Below these core functions, you add the specific seats your business needs: Marketing, Operations, Finance, Customer Service, or whatever roles are critical to your success.

The key insight is that you’re defining functions, not just jobs. Each seat on the Accountability Chart should have clear accountability for specific results, not just activities.

The GWC Framework

Once you’ve defined what each seat needs to accomplish, EOS provides a simple framework for evaluating whether someone is right for that role: GWC.

Get It: Do they truly understand the job, the culture, and how their role fits into the bigger picture? This isn’t about intelligence—it’s about comprehension. Someone might be brilliant but not “get” what success looks like in your specific environment.

Want It: Do they genuinely want to do this job? Not just tolerate it for the paycheck, but actually enjoy the core activities and responsibilities. If someone doesn’t want to be in sales, they’ll never excel at it, regardless of training or incentives.

Capacity: Do they have the mental, physical, and emotional capacity to do the job well? This includes skills that can be taught and innate abilities that can’t.

A person needs all three to be successful long-term. Miss any one, and you’ll have ongoing performance issues.

We worked with one client who had a long-term employee struggling in a management role. Using GWC, they realized he clearly got the company culture and wanted to help the business succeed, but simply didn’t have the capacity for the interpersonal demands of management. They moved him to a senior individual contributor role where he became one of their top performers.

The People Analyzer

Beyond job fit, EOS addresses cultural fit through the People Analyzer—a tool that evaluates how well each person embodies your company’s core values.

Most companies have core values posted somewhere, but they’re often generic (“integrity,” “teamwork,” “excellence”) and rarely used for actual decisions. EOS requires that your core values be specific enough to guide hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.

For each employee, you evaluate their demonstration of each core value using a simple scale:

Plus (+): They consistently demonstrate this value
Plus/Minus (+/-): They sometimes demonstrate it, sometimes don’t
Minus (-): They rarely or never demonstrate this value

Someone who gets mostly pluses is a cultural champion. Someone with mostly minuses is what EOS calls a “wrong person”—regardless of their performance, they don’t fit your culture and need to go.

The tricky cases are people who get pluses on performance but minuses on values—the “smart jerks” who deliver results but poison the culture. EOS is clear: these people have to go. Their negative impact on the team always outweighs their individual contributions.

Right Person, Wrong Seat

One of EOS’s most valuable insights is distinguishing between “wrong person” and “wrong seat” situations.

A wrong person doesn’t share your values or work ethic. They need to leave the company entirely.

A wrong seat is someone who fits your culture but isn’t succeeding in their current role. They might be great people who simply don’t have the right skills, interests, or capacity for what they’re being asked to do.

Before EOS, most companies handled both situations the same way—with performance improvement plans that rarely worked. EOS provides a more nuanced approach.

For wrong person situations, the answer is clear: help them find success elsewhere, as quickly and compassionately as possible.

For wrong seat situations, you have more options. Can you move them to a different role that better matches their GWC profile? Can you modify their current role to better fit their strengths? Can you provide training or support to address capacity gaps?

One client had a talented graphic designer who was struggling as their marketing manager. The design work was excellent, but strategic planning and campaign management weren’t natural fits. Instead of losing a good employee, they restructured the marketing function, hired a strategic marketing manager, and moved the designer back to a senior design role. Both positions became more effective.

The Hiring Advantage

The People component doesn’t just help with existing employees—it revolutionizes hiring.

Instead of posting generic job descriptions and hoping for the best, you start with a clear Accountability Chart that defines exactly what each role needs to accomplish. Your interview process becomes a systematic evaluation of GWC fit rather than gut-feel conversations about personality.

For the “Get It” evaluation, you ask specific questions about your industry, your customers, and your business model. You’re not looking for expertise—you’re looking for comprehension and curiosity.

For “Want It,” you dig into what energizes them about the role. Do they light up when talking about the core responsibilities, or do they seem more interested in peripheral benefits?

For “Capacity,” you use behavioral interviews, skill assessments, and work samples to evaluate whether they can actually do the job well.

You also evaluate cultural fit by asking candidates to describe situations where they demonstrated each of your core values. Their examples (or lack thereof) reveal whether they naturally operate in ways that align with your culture.

This approach dramatically improves hiring success rates. Instead of rolling the dice on personality and hoping for the best, you’re making systematic evaluations based on job requirements and cultural fit.

The People component has helped us build a stronger, more accountable team, and we’ve seen similar transformations with clients who commit to the sometimes-difficult work of ensuring right person, right seat alignment. For detailed guidance on implementing the Accountability Chart and conducting GWC evaluations, Wickman’s book Traction provides step-by-step instructions and scripts for having these important conversations.

The 30-Day Rule

EOS includes a practical tool for new hire success: the 30-day rule. Within 30 days of starting, both the new employee and their manager should know whether the hire is working out.

This might seem harsh, but it’s actually kinder than the traditional approach of letting mismatched employees struggle for months or years before addressing the obvious problems.

Clear expectations, regular check-ins, and honest feedback during the first month usually reveal whether someone has the right GWC profile for their role. If they don’t, it’s better for everyone to acknowledge that quickly and help them find a better fit elsewhere.

Difficult Conversations Made Easier

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the People component is how it makes difficult conversations more objective and less personal.

Instead of telling someone “you’re not working out” (which feels like a personal attack), you can have specific discussions about GWC fit. “We’ve noticed some challenges with the strategic planning aspects of your role. Help us understand how you feel about that part of the job.”

These conversations often reveal misalignments that can be addressed through role modification, additional support, or moves to different positions. Sometimes they confirm that the person isn’t a good fit, but the discussion happens in a context of clarity rather than blame.

The People Analyzer provides similar objectivity for cultural fit conversations. Instead of vague feedback about “attitude problems,” you can point to specific examples of how someone’s behavior conflicts with your stated values.

Building Accountability Culture

When everyone understands their role clearly and knows they’re being evaluated on specific criteria, accountability becomes natural rather than forced.

People can’t meet expectations they don’t understand. The Accountability Chart and GWC framework remove ambiguity about what success looks like in each role.

Regular people reviews—quarterly assessments using GWC and the People Analyzer—create ongoing conversations about performance and fit rather than annual surprises during formal review periods.

Teams where everyone is in the right seat with clear accountability tend to be more collaborative, productive, and satisfied. They spend less time managing around problem performers and more time focused on results.

Common Implementation Challenges

Avoiding hard decisions. The People component often reveals uncomfortable truths about long-term employees or personal favorites. Delaying action usually makes things worse for everyone involved.

Over-complicating the process. GWC and the People Analyzer are intentionally simple. Don’t turn them into complex performance management systems that defeat the purpose of clarity.

Forgetting about development. Not every GWC gap requires termination. Sometimes people can develop the capacity they’re missing through training, mentoring, or experience.

Inconsistent application. If you’re going to use these tools, apply them consistently across the organization. Exceptions based on personal relationships or perceived indispensability undermine the entire system.

The Long-Term Payoff

Companies that commit to getting the right people in the right seats see compound benefits over time. Hiring improves because you know what you’re looking for. Performance increases because everyone understands their role. Culture strengthens because values-based decisions become routine.

Perhaps most importantly, you stop wasting time and energy managing around people problems. Instead of working around that person who’s struggling, or cleaning up after the smart jerk who creates drama, you can focus your leadership attention on growth and opportunity.

Think EOS might help your business get unstuck? We’d be glad to share our implementation experience and discuss how we could support your journey.

Let’s Talk

Read All EOS Posts:

Sign up for Bird Feed, our monthly newsletter, to receive articles like this in your inbox.