A manager asks for another employee because the team is behind. The request may be justified. But before you add a recurring payroll expense, ask what the new person will change.
Will the hire complete work that nobody has time to do? Bring a capability the team lacks? Or enter the same approval queue, unclear handoffs, and repeated corrections that are slowing everyone else down?
I want employers to make that distinction before they write the job posting.
A staffing forecast does not explain a performance problem
In a September 14, 2026 SHRM contributor article, people analytics consultant Osariemen Afolabi discusses comparing possible workforce decisions and their operational consequences. It is practitioner commentary, not a new study proving that a particular staffing strategy works.
For employers, the useful question is straightforward: what would happen if we hired, trained, reassigned responsibilities, or improved the process?
You do not need a complex simulation to begin. Start with one team, one measurable result, and the work required to produce it.
Follow the work before judging the people
Suppose a service department is missing promised completion dates. Review a sample of late jobs from arrival through delivery. How much time was spent doing the work? How much was spent waiting for information, parts, decisions, or corrections?
A team can feel overloaded while important work sits untouched. That does not mean employees are unproductive or that the staffing request is wrong. It means the total backlog has not yet explained the cause.
Look for four different problems:
- Capacity: The volume of necessary work exceeds what the team can sustainably deliver.
- Process: Work stalls at approvals, incomplete handoffs, equipment constraints, or repeated errors.
- Capability: Employees need specific knowledge, practice, or technical skills to perform the work.
- Role and leadership: Responsibilities, decision authority, supervision, or the demands placed on an individual need closer review.
More than one can be present. A process improvement may help while an additional qualified employee is still needed. The goal is to understand the combination.
Job fit belongs in the review, with the operating evidence
When the concern involves how a person approaches the demands of a role, PXT Select adds structured information about thinking style, behavioral traits, and interests. That information can support hiring, development, and conversations about fit with a specific position.
It does not calculate staffing requirements, test technical proficiency, or prove why a department missed its target. Combine assessment information with observed performance, employee input, training history, and the actual conditions of the job.
TAC's Occupational DNA® process starts with proven performers in the same role. Assessing those employees with PXT Select helps inform a position-specific Performance Model. Internal or external candidates can then be compared with that model as part of a broader decision process.
Be careful about what you call top performance. Someone who produces more by skipping quality checks should not define success. Look at output alongside quality, safety, reliability, and the conditions under which the work was performed.
If the concern is unclear delegation or inconsistent supervision, CheckPoint 360° can help focus leadership development using feedback about observed behavior. It serves a different purpose from job-fit assessment. Choose the tool after defining the problem.
Put a dollar value on the opportunity without inventing savings
Consider this hypothetical example. Twelve employees each spend 2.5 hours a week on avoidable rework. At an assumed loaded labor cost of $40 an hour over 48 working weeks, that represents:
12 × 2.5 × $40 × 48 = $57,600 in annual labor capacity.
That is an estimate of time being consumed, not $57,600 in cash savings. Payroll may remain the same. Even if some time is recovered, it creates business value only when it improves something measurable, such as completed orders, turnaround time, quality, or overtime.
The example also does not prove that a new hire can be avoided. Time spread across twelve jobs is not automatically interchangeable with the skills, schedule, and responsibilities of one position.
Compare the likely benefit of each option with its full cost. Include recruitment, training, implementation time, supervisory attention, and the cost of leaving the problem unresolved.
Make the next decision testable
For a nonurgent issue, a short operating review can give a hiring request a stronger foundation. Agree on the result, document a baseline, and select an action with a named owner and review date.
If you simplify a handoff, track waiting time and errors. If you provide training, observe whether the employee can perform the work correctly. If you add a position, define the workload it will absorb and the expected improvement after onboarding.
Keep quality, safety, overtime, and employee workload in the review. Faster output is not an improvement if it depends on skipped checks or an unsustainable pace. Do not delay urgent staffing needed for safe operations or essential service coverage while running an experiment.
Approve the hire when the evidence supports it. Invest in development when that is the need. Fix the process when the same obstacle is affecting capable people.
At The Assessment Company®, we help employers define job requirements and use assessment information to strengthen workforce decisions. If a recurring performance problem has become another hiring request, let's review the role and the evidence behind it.