You Don't Have a People Problem. You Have a Decision Problem.

You keep hiring people to solve problems you created.

Not capability problems. Not market problems. Problems you made by refusing to decide what kind of company you want to run.

You brought in a PM because jobs are chaotic. But you're the one who said yes to four projects in the same week because you were afraid to turn down work. You hired an estimator because bids are taking too long. But you're the one who keeps changing scope mid-estimate because a customer called with a "quick question." You added an operations manager because nothing's getting coordinated. But you're the one texting crews at 6am with new priorities because you don't trust anyone else to make calls.

Every Hire Makes the Mess More Complex

Every new hire is supposed to create space for you to think strategically.

What happens instead: you create a more complex version of the same mess.

Now you're managing more people trying to execute a vision you haven't clarified, on systems you haven't built, with authority you haven't given them.

The false belief feels logical: "I need better people to scale." It persists because hiring feels like progress. You're investing. You're building a team. You're doing what successful companies do.

But here's the truth most people avoid: the real issue isn't that you need better people. It's that you've built a company that requires you to be involved in everything because you've never defined what decisions you're willing to let go of.

You say you want to step back. But every time someone makes a call without you, you swoop in and override it.

You say you want accountability. But you keep rescuing people from the consequences of their decisions.

So they learn to wait for you. And you wonder why nobody takes ownership.

The Pattern You're Not Seeing

Look at your last three hires.

Each one was supposed to solve a specific problem. Each one probably did solve that problem—for about six weeks. Then the chaos returned at a higher level of complexity.

Because you never addressed the root cause: you haven't decided what kind of company you're building.

Are you building a company that takes every job that comes in? Then you need systems for rapid onboarding and flexible capacity. And you need to accept thin margins and constant firefighting.

Are you building a company that's selective about projects? Then you need a clear definition of what you say yes to, what you say no to, and the courage to turn down work that doesn't fit.

Are you building a company where field teams make real-time decisions? Then you need decision frameworks, consequence tolerance, and the discipline not to override them when they get it wrong.

Are you building a company where everything runs through you? Then stop hiring people and expecting them to think like owners.

You can't have it all. Trying to run a selective, high-margin company with the decision-making structure of a startup that says yes to everything creates the exact confusion you're experiencing.

The company isn't too small for good people. It's too confused.

What You're Actually Paying For

You're hiring for scale while operating like a startup.

You're paying for expertise while insisting on control.

And every new person you bring in just makes it more obvious that the bottleneck isn't capacity.

It's you.

Not because you're incompetent. Because you haven't decided what you're building.

Let me be blunt: nobody can succeed in the role you've created because the role requires them to read your mind about decisions you haven't made.

Your PM can't prioritize projects when you keep changing priorities based on who called last.

Your estimator can't produce accurate bids when you're negotiating scope in real-time.

Your operations manager can't coordinate crews when you're texting them directly with new instructions.

They're not failing. You've set them up in an impossible situation.

The Hard Question

Here's what nobody wants to ask: What decisions are you willing to let go of?

Not in theory. In practice. On a Tuesday morning when someone makes a call you wouldn't have made.

Because if the answer is "none," then you don't need managers. You need assistants. And you should pay accordingly and stop being frustrated when they wait for your input on everything.

But if you want people to take ownership, you have to define the boundaries within which they can make decisions without you. And then—this is the hard part—you have to let them live with the consequences when they get it wrong.

That estimator who bid the job too low? Let them manage the margin squeeze. That PM who scheduled two crews on the same day? Let them figure out how to recover. That operations manager who promised a client a timeline you think is aggressive? Let them own the delivery.

Not as punishment. As real accountability.

Because the alternative is what you have now: capable people neutered by your inability to define where their authority starts.

The Way Forward

You don't need another hire. You need to make the decisions you've been deferring.

What kind of work do you want to do? Not what's most profitable in theory. What work allows you to operate the way you want to live.

What decisions must you make? Not because you're the only one who can, but because you're the owner and these are genuinely ownership-level choices.

What decisions can someone else make? And when they make a choice you wouldn't have made, what's your tolerance for letting it play out?

Clarity beats hiring. Every time.

The owners who scale successfully aren't the ones with the most talented teams. They're the ones who built companies where talented people can do their jobs without waiting for the owner to make every call.

You've been hiring people to create space. But space doesn't come from adding capacity. It comes from defining boundaries.

And boundaries come from deciding what you're building.

Bring This to Your Leadership Meeting

The Question (forces alignment):
"What's one decision I made this week that someone else on this team should have made instead?"

The Prompt (forces clarity):
"For each leadership role in this company, write down three decisions they can make without asking me first—and three decisions that must come to me. If we can't list them clearly, we haven't defined the role."

The Action (forces ownership):
By Friday, [Name the person] will identify one recurring decision they currently bring to you and make it themselves next time—without checking in first. Your job is to live with their choice, even if you would have decided differently.

What This Requires

This isn't about delegation skills. It's about ego.

You have to decide whether you want a company that runs smoothly or a company where you make every call.

You can't have both.

The peace you're looking for doesn't come from hiring smarter people. It comes from building a company where people know what they're responsible for—and what they're not.

That requires you to define it. Which requires you to decide it. Which requires you to confront the fact that you've been avoiding these choices because making them means accepting tradeoffs you don't want to accept.

But here's the truth: you're already living with tradeoffs. You're just letting them happen to you instead of choosing them intentionally.

The bottleneck isn't capacity. It's clarity.

And clarity starts with one question: What am I building?