The complete insight. Read this and decide if the details are for you or better forwarded to someone on your team.

Your exec team is about to approve three new hires: VP of Product, Wholesale Manager, Senior Financial Analyst. Total annual comp, $420K.

The reasoning is solid. Launches are slipping, retail deals are falling through, forecasts are never ready. Everyone is seemingly drowning and you just need more hands.

But if you've hired for this problem before, you already know what happens next. The new person joins, stability and structure are expected, but they can't operate because decision rights are unclear.  They either leave frustrated or become just another voice that shouldn't exist.

You have a clarity problem, not a capacity problem.  And hiring into broken systems just scales the dysfunction at $150K per person.

Q3 after action review. You missed revenue by 11%. 

The consensus is that the gap would have been closed if you had been able to execute all of it.  The solution: three new hires that will cost the company more than $420K this year.

This feels responsible and everyone is onboard. And if you've done this before, you know what happens next.

The seemingly obvious is not always correct.

When launches slip 6-8 weeks consistently, it looks like a capacity problem. So you hire a Product Manager.

When retail deals aren’t getting done, you hire a Wholesale Manager.

When forecasts keep missing and everyone questions the assumptions, you hire a Financial Analyst.

Each hire fills a visible gap. Each one fails for the same reason, because you're hiring people to operate a system that doesn't exist.

An $16M DTC brand we are working with struggled for 18 months for the same reason:

Hire #1: Product Manager ($120K) - brought in to fix late launches. But launches still slipped and they were replaced after 9 months.

Hire #2: Operations Coordinator ($85K) - brought in to bridge gaps throughout the supply chain. They instead became a meeting scheduler.

Hire #3: Senior Project Manager ($145K) - brought in from CPG to drive accountability. Built processes the team ignored. Left after 5 months.

Total spend: $350K annually while the problems still persisted.

Shortly after coming on board and hearing this we called timeout. "Let's map the workflow before we make another hire."

The mapping sprint:

One Thursday afternoon we pulled everyone into a room for a few hours. We drew the business node workflows on a whiteboard and found a total of 14 key decision points.

For each one, asked: Who makes this decision? What inputs do they need? Who provides them?

What we found:

Most decisions had unclear ownership ("usually the founder, but depends on the project").

Most decisions required inputs from people who didn't know they were supposed to provide them.

Many decisions were getting remade because the first decision was never documented.

The specific bottleneck:

Costing approval added 4-6 weeks to every launch.

Designs were approved, ops got supplier quotes, finance built margin model with incomplete data, founder reviewed days later, questioned assumptions, back to ops, finance rebuilt model.  By the time it was approved, marketing brought in new information and the decision had changed… restart design.

Not because anyone was incompetent. Because ownership was fragmented and inconsistent, inputs weren't clearly defined, and there was no standardized SOP to anchor decisions. On top of that, employees couldn’t tell whether an off-the-cuff request from the CEO required immediate action or would be reversed (or forgotten) in the following week, creating hesitation, unnecessary rework, and stalled momentum.

The Fix:

Ops owns supplier quotes (5-day SLA). Finance owns the gross margin and contribution margin by channel scenario analysis (2-day SLA). CFO approves up to $X, with founder approval required above that. Product lead documents decisions in shared tracker.

Tested on the next 2 launches. Costing went from 4-6 weeks to 9 days.

Six months later:

GTM timeline dropped from 18 weeks to 11 weeks. On-time delivery went from 18% to 90%.

The team didn’t change and no new hires were needed. They eliminated one role through attrition and pocketed $90K.

6 months later, they are still running the same process. And have never hired the roles that were on their roadmap.

First: Zoom Out

Before approving hiring spend (or any spend for that matter), ask:

“Based on our current Contribution Margin %, does this $100k create a clearly outsized return?

Here’s what $100k actually requires in incremental net revenue just to break even:

If you’re a 15% CM business, every $100k in added cost requires nearly $700k in new revenue just to justify it. So be honest.

Is this investment realistically going to produce that in the downside and base cases?

If the answer is “maybe” or “it could eventually,” then it is time to pause and deliberate honestly.

Next: Map the Workflow Like a Flowchart

Treat your biggest paid point like a system problem, not a headcount problem.

Get the entire team in a room.

Whiteboard it. Or write it on paper.

Map every node and decision from start to finish. 

As an active workshop, answer and write down real names:

If answers are vague, dependent on memory or “tribal knowledge,” that’s your bottleneck.

Last: Stamp the SOP

Once mapped - you should be able to have the team’s buy-in along with clarity on the following:

Now you can ask - Do we still need to hire? Or did we just fix the real problem. Most teams are surprised how their original assessment has changed.

Every hire into unclear decision rights makes the system harder to fix later.

You can add headcount and hope it stabilizes or you can spend a little time defining who actually decides what.

One permanently raises your fixed costs. The other raises your contribution margin.

Most exec teams choose hiring because it feels like they’re taking action, but the disciplined ones choose clarity first and rarely need the hire they thought was urgent.

Some business news reads like a lullaby.

Morning Brew is the opposite.

A free daily newsletter that breaks down what’s happening in business and culture — clearly, quickly, and with enough personality to keep things interesting.

Each morning brings a sharp, easy-to-read rundown of what matters, why it matters, and what it means to you. Plus, there’s daily brain games everyone’s playing.

Business news, minus the snooze. Read by over 4 million people every morning.

Try Morning Brew for Free