Most founders I know don’t actually have one job, they have three. Or five. Or ten. I’ve been there myself: one hat for sales, one for operations, one for HR, and another for customer service (all before lunch)
What does that mean for hiring? Too often, when we try to hire in the middle of that chaos, we end up writing job descriptions based on our overwhelm, not on a clear map of the company. That’s why coaching systems like EOS, Bloom Growth, and Scaling Up all push leaders to build an organizational (or accountability) chart.
I used to think: how boring. Until I realized it’s not just a chart, it’s a mirror.
When I first drew mine, I suddenly saw:
-
I was holding three roles.
-
Some teammates were holding half a role.
-
And some roles didn’t even exist.
Once that truth was on paper, I was finally able to play the jigsaw puzzle, moving responsibilities left, right, up, and down until every role made sense (and I had less on my plate).
Only then can you:
✔️ Write job descriptions that actually stick
✔️ Carve out tasks without leaving holes
✔️ Stop hiring “a warm body to do stuff”
Most small companies never do this exercise. But the ones who do unlock a level of clarity that makes scaling possible.
Have you ever done the organigram exercise? What surprised you most when you saw your company on paper?
-
Control and scale rarely coexist
Control and scale rarely coexist
Some founders say they want freedom.
But structurally, they design to be needed.
I once worked with a founder who was exhausted.
12-hour days.
Constant calls.
Slack always buzzing.
He told me, “I just need stronger people.”
But when we mapped the decision flow, the issue was obvious.
Every major decision required him.
Pricing.
Hiring.
Client exceptions.
Leaders made recommendations.
Then they waited.
Not because they weren’t capable.
Because authority had never been transferred.
Control can feel valuable.
But control and scale rarely coexist.
The real question isn’t:
“Is my team capable?”
It’s:
Have I structurally allowed them to be?
-
Surf Pursuit
The Big Oxmox advised her not to do so, because there were thousands of bad Commas, wild Question.
-
Outcome Based Hiring Is Leadership, Not Paperwork
Most job descriptions still look the same: a company bio, a role summary, tasks, requirements, and, on a good day, pay and benefits.
It’s a clear structure and it works for assistant level roles. But for any role that carries ownership, and no founder wants a team without ownership, this structure leaves out the one thing that matters most: outcomes.
When we hire only with tasks or responsibilities, we unintentionally set the tone for micromanagement. We define the “how” before we’ve even met the person we hope to trust with the role. We position ourselves as the strategists and our team as the doers, skipping the most important part of leadership: defining what success actually looks like.
Outcome based hiring changes that.
It forces clarity.
It attracts candidates who believe they can achieve what is being asked.
It creates space for people to bring their own thinking, their own process, and their own ownership.It is how you build a team that scales without pulling you back into the details.
This doesn’t mean tasks have to disappear because day to day examples help candidates understand the flow of the role. But they should support the outcomes, not replace them.
The balance looks like this:
• Be honest about the actions the role requires.
• Be even clearer about the results that matter.
• And let the right people show you how they will deliver them.
