Why Solving the Right Problems Comes Before Hiring the Right People

In technology-driven organizations, hiring is often treated as the starting point for change. A new role is approved, a job description is written, and the search begins with the hope that the right hire will unlock progress.

Yet in practice, many initiatives stall. The issue is rarely a lack of capable people. More often, it is that the problem they were hired to solve was never clearly defined.

This is one of the most common and costly mistakes organizations make. They move quickly to recruit talent without slowing down to understand what is actually broken.

When Hiring Becomes a Proxy for Strategic Clarity

Pressure accelerates decisions. Delivery deadlines slip. A system doesn't scale as expected. A Transformation programme fails to gain traction. In response, leadership often turns to hiring as the most visible lever available.

A senior engineer is added. A programme manager is brought in. A specialist role is created.

On the surface, these decisions feel proactive. But underneath them often lies an uncomfortable truth. The organization is responding to symptoms rather than causes. The role is clear. The problem is not.

When this happens, even highly capable professionals struggle. Expectations shift. Priorities compete. Success becomes difficult to measure because no one is aligned on what success was meant to look like in the first place.

A Familiar Scenario in Digital Transformation

Consider a large organization undertaking a digital transformation across finance and operations. Leadership identifies that progress is slow and data is inconsistent across systems. The immediate conclusion is that the team lacks technical expertise, and so they approve a senior integration role.

The hire is made. The individual is experienced, well-qualified, and motivated. Yet six months in, frustration builds. Stakeholders disagree on priorities. Requirements change continuously. Integration work starts and stops as upstream decisions remain unresolved.

Eventually, the conversation turns back to hiring. Another role is proposed.

In reality, the issue was never a lack of talent. It was the absence of a shared understanding of the problem. No one had clearly articulated what needed to change, which systems truly mattered, or how success would be measured. The hire was expected to create clarity when clarity should have existed before the role was created.

Why Defining the Problem First Changes Hiring Outcomes

Organizations that consistently deliver better outcomes take a different approach. Before hiring, they invest time in understanding the problem space.

They ask questions like:

• What outcome are we trying to achieve?
• Where is friction actually occurring?
• What would "better" look like in observable, practical terms?

These conversations are not always comfortable. They expose misalignment, surface assumptions, and force prioritisation. But they also create the conditions for effective hiring.

Once the problem is clear, the talent required becomes clearer too. Sometimes the answer is not a permanent hire at all, but short-term expertise, targeted leadership, or a specific capability brought in to unblock progress.

From Job Descriptions to Hiring for Outcomes

When hiring is anchored to problem definition, the focus shifts away from generic job descriptions and toward outcomes.

Instead of searching for a senior developer or a programme lead, organizations look for people who have solved similar problems in comparable environments. Experience is evaluated based on context and impact, not just tenure or toolsets.

This allows for more flexibility. Some challenges require deep, short-term intervention. Others benefit from long-term ownership. What matters is alignment between the nature of the problem and the type of talent brought in to solve it.

Why This Approach Works Better

Clarity changes behaviour. When a role exists to solve a clearly articulated problem, expectations align from day one. New hires understand why they are there, what success looks like, and how their work connects to broader business outcomes.

Just as importantly, organizations avoid falling into a cycle of reactive hiring. Instead of adding people to compensate for ambiguity, they address the ambiguity itself.

Over time, this leads to fewer reactive hires, better use of specialist expertise, and more sustainable progress.

A Shift Worth Making

Hiring will always be an essential part of building and evolving technology teams. But it should not be the starting point.

The most effective organizations treat hiring as a response to clearly defined problems, not as a substitute for defining them. They recognise that talent delivers the greatest impact when deployed with purpose, context, and direction.

In the end, success does not come from hiring more people. It comes from understanding what needs to change and then finding the right talent to make that change happen.

Start With the Problem, Not the Role

If you are considering a senior technology or transformation hire and want to ensure the role is defined around the right problem, I work with leadership teams to clarify objectives, outcomes, and capability gaps before any sourcing begins.

This upfront clarity is what allows us to move quickly and deliver best-fit contractors, often within 48 hours, without compromising on quality or alignment.

If you would like to talk through your current challenges or upcoming needs, feel free to reach out to me directly for a straightforward, no-pressure conversation.