I think a lot of businesses are hiring for the wrong thing.

I hear versions of these statements all the time:

“They’re great at entering orders, but they can’t really think for themselves.”
“I don’t have anyone who could figure that out. I’d have to do it.”
“They don’t see far enough downfield to understand how what they do impacts the rest of the workflow.”

So what happens?

Managers add QC steps. Owners become the final checkpoint. Problems get fixed instead of investigated. Data gets collected but not analyzed. Bottlenecks become accepted as “just how things work.”

And eventually I ask: Why don’t you hire someone who can do more of the thinking?

The answer is often some version of:
“The really good candidate wanted too much money.”
Or:
“We can’t afford a thinker at what we pay for that position.”

I wonder if we have that backward.

What does it cost to hire someone who requires a manager to check their work, solve their problems, catch what they missed, and constantly put out the fires they helped create?

Maybe the more expensive employee is the one who needs the owner to keep doing part of their job.

Paying more for someone who can think, anticipate, analyze, and improve a process isn’t necessarily a higher labor cost.

It may be buying back management capacity.

And that might be one of the best investments a growing business can make.

Love to hear your thoughts on this one.