How EOS’s People Analyzer Brings Structure to Tough Team Decisions

In a recent LinkedIn post, Mark O’Donnell discusses how the EOS People Analyzer can help leadership teams make more consistent decisions about whether employees fit their company’s core values. This article covers O’Donnell’s post and examines the framework he describes; it is not written by O’Donnell.

“The People Analyzer® gives the whole leadership team one standard to work from.”

O’Donnell starts with a familiar management problem: leaders may sense that someone is not right for the team but struggle to explain why. Without shared criteria, he says, discussions can circle between conflicting opinions and end without a decision. In his account, Gino Wickman developed the People Analyzer to make those conversations more focused and less subjective.

Separating cultural fit from role fit

A central distinction in O’Donnell’s post is between the “right person” and the “right seat.” He explains that the first concerns alignment with a company’s core values, while the second concerns whether someone “gets it, wants it, and has the capacity to do it” in a particular role. His post focuses on the first question, rather than assessing role performance.

O’Donnell also cautions against treating a mismatch as a judgment of personal worth. As he notes:

“Core Values don’t make anyone a good or bad person.”

In O’Donnell’s view, values are a way to consider fit with a particular culture. Someone who does not align with one organization’s values may still do strong work in a workplace with different values. That distinction gives leaders a way to discuss fit without turning the conversation into a claim about someone’s character.

A shared rating and a clear bar

According to O’Donnell, the tool asks leaders to rate each person against each core value using a plus, a plus/minus, or a minus, depending on how consistently the value is demonstrated. He says the leadership team should begin by rating one another; if the team broadly scores low on a value, that may prompt a question about whether it is truly core.

Agreeing on expectations

For a company with five core values, O’Donnell describes a recommended bar of three pluses, two plus/minuses, and no minuses. Teams may adjust that threshold, he writes, but agreeing on it together is what matters. This step, in his framing, gives leaders a common standard before they evaluate individual results.

O’Donnell’s next step is to share ratings and expectations with the employee before making a decision. He says people should have a fair chance to improve and that the practical question is whether they can reach the agreed bar.

Following through on the conversation

O’Donnell outlines a “Three-Strike Rule”: discuss concerns and allow 30 days for change, meet again if the issues persist, then make a decision if the person remains below the bar after a third conversation. He recommends documenting each discussion and says some people leave before the process reaches its final step.

“Putting it off can cost you a year.”

That line captures O’Donnell’s argument for timely decisions. He acknowledges that ending a working relationship can be painful, while contending that prolonged delay can carry costs for the company, the team, and the employee. His post presents the People Analyzer as a structure for making difficult calls more transparent and, he argues, fairer to everyone involved.