Unless you launched a collision repair business from the ground up in just the last few years, you’ve likely had to contend with job roles within your shop that were built for a different “season” in the industry.
Take the role of “estimator,” for example. In the past, most estimators were in the front office and were the main point of contact for the customer before, during, and after repairs. They wrote the initial estimate, worked to sell the job, maybe ordered parts, handled customer updates, wrote and negotiated supplements, and “resold” the repaired vehicle to the customer.
Now in many shops, all those roles are handled by different people. Customer service representatives are handling customer contact and sales, “blueprinters” are out in the shop, and parts and production managers are also overseeing other aspects of what once fell under the estimator’s umbrella.
Many who have stepped into ownership or leadership in the industry have inherited an employee structure that has been around for decades. They found themselves trying to define each job based on what it had always required, working to plug someone into that spot and expect results.
But we don’t often stop to ask an essential question: Is this person wired for this seat, this role within our business?
When an employee’s performance dips, it’s not always about a lack of effort on their part. Sometimes the responsibilities attached to that position have changed, or the role was never the right fit for that person, and it drains their energy.
Finding how people are naturally wired
When I work with collision center teams, I often use two tools.
The first is DISC behavioral theory and assessments. DISC stands for four core styles: dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness.
The second is “The Working Genius” model, founded by Patrick Lencioni and The Table Group. It identifies six types of work summarized by the acronym WIDGET: wonder, invention, discernment, galvanizing, enablement, and tenacity.
The model centers on the idea that each of us generally has two types of work — our “geniuses” — that we naturally excel at and that energize us. We also have two “competencies” we can perform well but that drain us over time. And we have two “frustrations” that feel heavy and deplete our energy quickly.
These tools don’t label people. They provide language for how someone is naturally wired, how they communicate and, most importantly, how they respond under pressure as well as where they get energy from their work. That energy component matters more than most of us realize.
A real-world example
Here’s an example of what this looks like. I was coaching a shop where a back-of-shop leader’s performance had shifted over the course of a couple of months. The company ownership saw this leader avoiding accountability conversations, spending too much time buried in details, hesitating to correct technicians, and generally seeming overwhelmed.
They were concerned and wondered if something was going on personally with this employee. That’s a wise question when someone who has previously met expectations starts struggling.
But as we dug deeper, a clearer pattern emerged. The employee’s DISC profile showed high steadiness and high compliance. Under stress, he became more cautious and more detail-focused, rather than more decisive nor more confrontational.
When we looked at the employee based on the Working Genius model, we found his working geniuses were enablement and tenacity. He was wired to bring steadiness and reliability, to support others, to finish what gets started, and to follow clear expectations,
His role within the business, however, required heavy galvanizing and discernment work: confronting performance issues; making fast judgment calls; managing tension between team members; and enforcing standards consistently.
As production pressure increased, he wasn’t intentionally checking out. He was stressed. And under stress, he retreated to what felt controllable. He leaned into checklists and focused on small tasks. He avoided conflict because conflict drained him quickly.
From the outside, it looked like disengagement. In reality, it was predictable behavior based on how he is naturally wired.
That doesn’t remove accountability. Standards still matter. Growth still matters. All of us have the capacity to develop in areas that are uncomfortable. We can absolutely strengthen competencies and improve in weaker areas.
But ignoring wiring doesn’t create growth. It creates frustration. When we understand wiring, we can coach someone intentionally instead of reacting emotionally.
And having two energizing “geniuses” doesn’t mean we won’t have to get through some of the other types (“competencies” and “frustrations”) at times. That’s part of life. The goal is not to avoid uncomfortable work completely. The goal is to ensure people are spending the majority of their time in areas where they are wired to thrive.
Structure responsibilities around strengths
Years ago at our shop in Tallahassee, before I had language for any of this, we faced a similar dynamic in a different way.
We had a front-end estimator who was excellent with customers and technically sharp. He built trust quickly. People loved working with him. But detailed follow-through and documentation drained him. He could do it, but it depleted his energy and consistency was an issue.
At the same time, we had a customer service rep who was exceptional with organization and follow-through. Nothing slipped through the cracks. But high-emotion customer conversations were not her natural strength.
Early on, we could have focused on what each of them lacked. Instead, we intentionally paired them. The estimator focused on customer relationships and technical conversations. The CSR owned the documentation, tracking, and process follow-through. Together, they were incredible.
We didn’t know the language of “The Working Genius” at the time, but we understood something important: They weren’t weak team members. They were strong team members who were each carrying the wrong parts of the load alone. When we aligned their strengths, both their performance and morale improved.
In collision centers, we often expect one person to be everything a role has historically required: being strong with people, details, confrontation, and follow-through, all while being highly organized and a fast decision-maker.
That’s a tall order for any one individual.
Addressing this isn’t about lowering expectations. It’s not about excusing poor performance. We all need to stretch and grow, develop in areas that don’t come naturally. But sustainable growth happens when people spend most of their work time in their strengths, not when they live daily in frustration zones.
So if you have a team member who is struggling, instead of asking, “Why aren’t they better at this?” consider:
- Where do they get energy?
- What consistently drains them?
- Could we structure responsibilities around complementary strengths?
The right people in the wrong seats will struggle. More pressure won’t fix that. But the right people in the right seats will thrive.
As collision center leaders, we don’t just manage processes. We create environments where people can win. Sometimes the breakthrough isn’t about changing the person. It’s about changing the seat.
