The Right People, the Right Work: Designing Teams for Greater Capacity and Performance

As companies grow, one of the first signs of operational strain is not always a lack of people.

Sometimes, it is a lack of clarity about who should be doing what.

A talented leader may spend hours updating reports. A senior marketing professional may repeatedly enter data. A highly experienced manager may become the default person for scheduling, follow-up, quality checks, and administrative troubleshooting.

Every one of those activities may be necessary.

But does that mean those employees should be the people doing them?

At Roos Advisors, this is one of the questions we encourage growing organizations to examine before automatically adding another employee, reorganizing a department, or introducing a new technology:

Are we using our people, their strengths, and our organizational resources in the areas where they can provide the greatest value?

That question became particularly relevant during work with one of our clients, Double Play Marketing and Sales.

Growth Wasn’t the Problem. How Work Was Being Distributed Was.

As Double Play continued to grow, the team found itself spending increasing amounts of time on important but highly repeatable administrative and production-related responsibilities.

The work needed to be completed accurately and consistently. But those responsibilities were increasingly competing with the work that required the experience and expertise of the company’s senior professionals:

• Client strategy
• Analytics
• Creative direction
• Relationship development
• Problem-solving
• Innovation
• Leadership
• Business development

The instinct in many growing organizations is to conclude:

“We need another person.”

Sometimes that is exactly the right answer.

But before determining who to hire, we believe leaders should first understand the work.

That means breaking roles and workflows apart and asking:

What work needs to be done?

What skills does that work actually require?

Who is doing it today?

Is that the best use of that person’s capabilities?

Could the process be standardized, documented, automated, delegated, outsourced, or redesigned?

These questions shift workforce planning away from simply filling positions and toward intentionally designing how work gets accomplished.

Stop Looking Only at Job Titles. Start Looking at Tasks.

Traditional organizational charts tell us who reports to whom.

They do not necessarily tell us how work actually moves through an organization.

That distinction matters.

Over time, employees naturally accumulate responsibilities. Someone helps with a report once and eventually owns it. A manager steps in when a process breaks and becomes permanently responsible for it. Several people participate in the same recurring activity because ownership was never clearly established.

Eventually, companies can have highly skilled employees spending substantial portions of their week on work that does not require their level of expertise.

That is not primarily a people problem.

It is an organizational design problem.

At Roos Advisors, we encourage clients to examine work at the task level rather than relying exclusively on job descriptions.

One practical way to do that is to evaluate recurring responsibilities across several dimensions:

1. Strategic Value

How directly does this activity contribute to customers, revenue, decision-making, innovation, leadership, or organizational growth?

2. Skill Requirement

What level of judgment, expertise, experience, creativity, or relationship management does the task require?

3. Repeatability

Is this work relatively predictable and performed using a consistent process?

4. Delegability

Can someone else perform the activity effectively if expectations, training, procedures, and accountability are clearly established?

5. Automation Potential

Does the activity still require human involvement, or could technology or AI perform some or all of it?

6. Strength Alignment

Does the responsibility align with the strengths and capabilities of the person currently doing it?

Once leaders begin examining work this way, opportunities often become much clearer.

The Goal Is Not Simply to Save Time

We assisted a marketing agency with reviewing their team members’ additional capacity.

The company estimates that approximately 10–15 hours of capacity per week for each senior team member was redirected away from recurring administrative and production responsibilities.

But focusing only on “hours saved” misses an important part of the story.

Those hours matter because of what employees can do with them instead.

Consider the difference between ten hours spent completing repetitive administrative work and ten hours spent:

• analyzing client performance,
• developing a new strategy,
• strengthening an important client relationship,
• coaching an employee,
• solving an operational problem,
• developing a new service,
• pursuing business development opportunities, or
• improving the customer experience.

The hours may be identical.

The organizational value is not.

That is why workforce efficiency should not simply be measured by how busy employees are or how many tasks they complete.

A better question is:

How much of our people’s capacity is being invested in work that requires and benefits from their particular strengths, judgment, expertise, and abilities?

Strengths Matter—but So Does Job Design

There is increasing attention in leadership conversations around identifying employee strengths.

That is valuable, but identifying strengths is only the first step.

Organizations must also create opportunities for employees to use those strengths.

A company can hire an outstanding strategist and then fill 40 percent of that person’s week with administrative coordination.

It can hire a creative employee and bury that individual in processes requiring little creative thought.

It can promote a strong leader and then allow operational interruptions to consume most of the leader’s capacity.

The employee may technically be in the “right seat,” while the design of the seat prevents that person from doing the work he or she was hired to perform.

Effective organizational design therefore requires us to examine both:

Who is in the role?

and

What have we actually put into the role?

Reducing the Hidden Cost of Fragmented Work

Another benefit Double Play experienced was greater clarity around ownership.

Previously, recurring activities could be distributed across several people. As the company became busier, work could become fragmented and require additional follow-up.

By assigning defined responsibilities to dedicated resources, the organization was pushed to become more intentional about:

• documenting procedures,
• establishing expectations,
• defining ownership,
• training employees,
• setting completion standards, and
• creating accountability.

Those improvements extend well beyond outsourced staffing.

In fact, they are characteristics of healthy operational systems regardless of who performs the work.

If a process cannot be explained, documented, assigned, measured, and managed, outsourcing the process will not fix it.

It may simply expose the weakness faster.

Outsourcing Is a Workforce Strategy, Not Just a Cost Strategy

Outsourcing is sometimes discussed primarily as a way to reduce labor costs.

That is too narrow.

Used thoughtfully, outsourcing represents one of several resources available when designing a modern workforce.

Depending on the work involved, an organization may decide to:

• retain the responsibility internally,
• redesign an existing role,
• hire a full-time employee,
• use a fractional specialist,
• engage an offshore professional,
• contract with an external expert,
• automate the activity,
• incorporate AI, or
• use some combination of these approaches.

The decision should follow the work—not the other way around.

Organizations should first determine what needs to be accomplished, the capabilities required, the value of the activity, and how success will be measured.

Only then should they determine the best resource to perform it.

Delegation Still Requires Leadership

There is an important caution.

Outsourcing, automation, and delegation are not “set it and forget it” solutions.

Moving a responsibility does not eliminate the need to lead.

Double Play found that successful integration required good onboarding, communication, training, feedback, and clearly established expectations.

Their offshore professionals needed to understand not only what to do but why the work mattered.

The same principle applies to employees at every level of an organization.

Effective delegation requires:

Clear ownership. Clear expectations. Clear processes. Clear measures. Clear feedback.

Without those elements, organizations frequently blame the person when the actual problem is the system surrounding the person.

Measure More Than Payroll Savings

Organizations also need to evaluate whether workforce changes are producing the outcomes they expected.

At Roos Advisors, we believe strongly in measuring whether what we believe is happening is actually happening.

If a company says a staffing change has improved efficiency, what evidence supports that conclusion?

Potential measures could include:

• Leadership hours redirected to strategic work
• Turnaround time
• Error or rework rates
• Process completion rates
• Client response times
• Employee capacity
• Revenue per employee
• Cost per completed activity
• Employee engagement
• Customer satisfaction
• Retention
• Business development activity
• Overall profitability

Not every organization needs every metric.

The important thing is establishing a baseline and determining what success should look like before deciding that a new structure is working.

A Better Question for Growing Companies

The experience at Double Play reinforces something we see frequently in growing organizations.

Growth does not automatically mean adding another traditional full-time position every time capacity becomes constrained.

Sometimes growth requires hiring.

Sometimes it requires better processes.

Sometimes it requires delegation.

Sometimes it requires technology.

Sometimes it requires outsourcing.

And sometimes the organization already has the talent it needs—but that talent is spending too much time doing the wrong work.

Before making the next hire, we encourage leaders to examine their organizations differently.

Track where your team’s time is actually going.

Identify recurring and process-driven activities consuming managerial and professional capacity.

Understand the strengths and capabilities of your employees.

Determine which work genuinely requires human judgment, creativity, expertise, or relationships.

Document processes that can be transferred.

Evaluate opportunities for technology, AI, outsourcing, fractional expertise, and redesigned roles.

Then measure whether the changes actually improve organizational performance.

The question is no longer simply:

“What tasks can we outsource?”

The more important question is:

“How can we intentionally design our workforce so every person spends more of their time doing the work where they provide the greatest value?”

That is the opportunity behind thoughtful organizational design.

And increasingly, it is becoming one of the most important leadership questions for organizations trying to grow without simply adding more complexity.

---

About Roos Advisors

Roos Advisors helps organizations move from strategy to execution by examining the intersection of people, processes, organizational structure, financial performance, and leadership. Our approach is centered on understanding how an organization actually operates, using data to identify opportunities, and designing practical systems that allow both people and businesses to perform at their best.

There is solid current I/O psychology research behind this positioning. A 2025 meta-analysis covering 111 independent samples and 43,575 employees found meaningful relationships between employees’ use of their strengths and workplace outcomes, while also finding that organizational support and positive leadership help enable people to use those strengths. (IAAP Journals) The Job Demands–Resources framework is also widely used in organizational psychology to understand how the design of work, demands placed on employees, and resources available to them affect well-being, behavior, and performance. (PubMed)

The workforce-design angle is particularly timely. Contemporary strategic workforce planning is increasingly about determining the capabilities and capacity an organization requires and how those needs should be fulfilled, rather than treating workforce planning simply as head-count planning. Oxford University Press published an extensive evidence-based treatment of these emerging workforce-planning practices in 2024. (OUP Academic)