How to Know If You Hired the Right People — The GWC Leadership Framework

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/33f22b_013d135fadc14609a6181dbaa8018d63/1080p/mp4/file.mp4

Watch the video version of this blog post!

One of the most common frustrations I hear from leaders is some version of the same thing: I have someone on my team who just isn't performing, and I don't know what to do about it. They've had the conversations, set the targets, tried different approaches — and nothing seems to shift. The person isn't bad at their job exactly, but something is off, and the leader can't quite put their finger on what.

Most of the time, the problem isn't the person. It's the absence of a clear framework for diagnosing what's actually going wrong. Because underperformance rarely comes from one single cause, and the solution depends entirely on what's driving it. A training problem and a motivation problem look similar on the surface but require completely different responses. Treating one as the other wastes everyone's time and usually makes things worse.

The tool I use for this is called GWC. It's simple, it's quick, and it cuts through a lot of the noise.

GWC stands for Get it, Want it, and Competence. Three questions, each scored out of ten, applied to anyone on your team — or to yourself as a leader.

Does your team understand their role and tasks? Are the expectations clear?

The first is G: do they get it? This is about understanding. Does the person genuinely comprehend what's expected of them in their role? Not just the job description, but the real expectations — how many calls need to be made, what the follow-up process looks like, what standard of work is actually required, how they're supposed to operate day to day. It sounds basic, but a surprising number of performance issues trace back to a gap here. The person isn't underperforming because they don't care or can't do the job — they're underperforming because nobody clearly communicated what doing it well actually looks like.

If someone scores low on G, the response is straightforward: communicate your expectations more clearly. That's a leadership responsibility, not a people problem.

Does your employee want it? Do they want to improve, to learn more, and to make their role their own? Or are they just collecting a paycheque?

The second is W: do they want it? This is about willingness and drive. Some people get it completely — they understand the role, they know what's expected — but they're not bringing the energy to pursue it. There's no urgency. Things get pushed to tomorrow. The spark isn't there. This is a harder conversation because willingness is something a person ultimately has to bring themselves. You can create the right environment, set targets, build incentives, have honest performance conversations — but you can't manufacture desire in someone who's lost it or never had it.

If someone scores low on W, the conversation needs to be direct: you understand what's needed, but it doesn't feel like you're going after it. What's getting in the way? Sometimes people have genuinely lost their motivation and need a reset. Sometimes they're in the wrong role entirely. Either way, the conversation has to happen.

Is your employee compentent at their job? Can they do the skills required?

The third is C: competence. Do they have the skills, knowledge, and capability to actually do the job at the level required? This is different from understanding what's expected — it's about whether they have the tools to deliver it. Someone can fully get it and genuinely want it but still be missing a specific skill that's holding them back. If that's the diagnosis, the response is training, development, and coaching — not performance management.

The power of the GWC framework is in the scoring. Go through each letter and give an honest number out of ten for each person on your team. The pattern that emerges tells you exactly what kind of intervention is needed.

Meet with your employee and directly address the area they're struggling in. If your feedback is too generic, the conversation won't lead anywhere.

Someone who scores 8 on G, 4 on W, and 8 on C has a willingness problem — not a knowledge or skills gap. The conversation and the approach are completely different to someone who scores 8 on G, 8 on W, and 4 on C, who clearly has the drive but needs development in a specific area.

Without that kind of clarity, leaders tend to default to generic performance conversations that don't address the actual issue — which is why those conversations so rarely produce lasting change.

There's one more thing worth saying about GWC, and it's probably the most important part. Before you apply this framework to your team, apply it to yourself.

Don't be afraid to run the GWC evaluation on yourself. Find the areas that you need to improve in and demonstrate that to your team.

Do you, as a leader, still get what you're trying to build? Are you clear on the vision, the expectations, the direction? Do you still want it — is the passion and drive still there, or has something eroded it over time? And where is your competence gap right now? What skill or area of knowledge would make you more effective in your role if you developed it?

Leadership assessment tools are most useful when the person using them is willing to be assessed by them too. Start there, and the conversations with your team will be considerably more grounded.