If you just had a security incident, a failed system rollout, or a major outage, your first instinct might be "we need to hire someone." But if you don't know what went wrong or why, hiring someone to fix a problem you can't define just adds headcount to chaos.
If your current team is underwater because they're doing operational work that should be automated or outsourced, hiring another person to do the same inefficient work just scales the inefficiency. You don't need more people, you need better processes.
If you're hiring because "everyone says we need a [role]" but you can't articulate what success looks like in 90 days, you're hiring based on advice, not need. That's how you end up with expensive people doing work that doesn't move the business forward.
But here's when a crisis actually does require new capability: When you've identified the root cause and it's a skill gap your current team can't fill. When you've fixed the immediate crisis and need ongoing expertise to prevent recurrence. When the volume of strategic work exceeds your team's capacity even after process improvements.
The difference between $20M to $100M companies that hire strategically during crises and those that panic-hire? They pause, diagnose the real problem, and ask: "Is this a people gap, a process gap, or a decision-making gap?" Then they solve for the actual gap, not just throw bodies at it.
I've watched companies hire full-time executives during crises only to realize six months later the problem was broken processes, not missing people. Crisis hiring is expensive. Strategic hiring solves problems.
What crisis made you realize you needed different capability, not just more people?
Want to talk through how this applies to your company?
Schedule a conversation