A process starts groaning. Tickets pile up. Someone misses a deadline because they were busy doing something that shouldn't be their job. The founder's reflex: open a req.
This instinct feels responsible. The team is stretched, so you add capacity. But hiring is not the only way to add capacity, and for early-stage teams it is almost always the most expensive way. A full-time seat costs salary, benefits, onboarding time, management attention, and — the part nobody budgets for — coordination overhead that slows everyone else down.
There is a cheaper move, and it starts with a single weekly question.
Every week, ask the team one thing: what took the most time relative to its value?
Not "what was hard." Not "what was annoying." The question targets the ratio between effort spent and value produced. A hard problem that delivers a big outcome is fine. An easy task that eats three hours and produces nothing useful is a signal.
Collect the answers. Write them down. You are looking for patterns, not one-off complaints. If the same low-value task shows up three weeks in a row, you have found a constraint worth examining.
The format does not need to be fancy. A fifteen-minute standup works. A shared doc works. A thread in your team chat works. The habit matters more than the container.
Once you identify a recurring time sink, run it through three filters:
1. Can we stop doing this entirely?
This is the question teams skip. Many processes exist because someone started them once and nobody revisited whether they still matter. Reports nobody reads. Approval steps that protect against risks that no longer exist. Manual checks that duplicate what an automated system already handles. Killing a process is faster and cheaper than improving it.
2. Can we change the system so this task disappears?
Sometimes the work is necessary but only because of how things are structured. A team member spends two hours a week reformatting data between two tools. That is not a people problem — it is a plumbing problem. Fix the plumbing and the work vanishes. No new hire required.
3. Can we reduce the frequency or scope?
Daily becomes weekly. "Every customer gets a manual check" becomes "only flagged accounts get a manual check." Partial fixes count. Cutting a three-hour task to thirty minutes buys back most of the time without any structural change.
Only after all three filters come back empty should you start writing a job description.
Large companies can absorb a mediocre hire. The coordination cost of one more person in a two-hundred-person org is small. At five people, or ten, or fifteen, every new seat changes the communication graph. Meetings get longer. Decisions take more steps. Context fragments.
When you eliminate a task instead of hiring someone to do it, you get the capacity back without the coordination tax. The team stays small and fast — the entire advantage of being early-stage. Protecting that advantage is worth real effort.
Run the weekly constraint audit consistently for a month and expect to find at least two or three tasks you can eliminate, automate, or reduce. That is not a guess — it is the natural result of paying attention to something you previously ignored.
Some of what you find will be embarrassing. You will discover that a process you personally created is wasting someone's time. Good. That means the audit is working.
Over a quarter, the compounding effect matters. Each eliminated task frees time that can absorb the next surge of work. You build slack into the system without adding headcount. And when you eventually do hire, you hire for growth — not for maintenance.
The cheapest hire is the one you automate away before opening the req. Not because people are expensive (though they are), but because every role you add before it is truly necessary creates drag you will carry for years.
A weekly habit of asking "what took the most time relative to its value?" is boring. It is not a strategy deck. It will not impress investors in a board meeting. But it is the single highest-return operational practice available to a small team.
Hiring solves capacity problems. The constraint audit asks whether the capacity problem is real — or whether it is a process problem wearing a headcount mask.
Most of the time, it is the mask.
Be the first to comment.
0 comments
Loading comments...