Stop hiring for the work software should do.
The roles you're about to post are the roles Winsen was built to retire. A hard look at the org chart.
This is uncomfortable to argue, because we sell the software that retires some of these roles. Take the conflict of interest as given and read it anyway, because the logic holds whether or not you ever buy from us.
The role that's secretly a workaround
Look at the next five roles you are about to post. Some exist because the work needs judgment, relationships, or a human who can be held accountable. Keep those, and hire well. But some exist only because software could not do a job, so a person did it instead. The ops hire who copies data between two tools that do not talk. The coordinator who chases status. The analyst who rebuilds the same report every Monday.
Hiring for a workaround does not solve the problem. It promotes it to a salary line.
The workaround hire is expensive twice
You pay once in salary, and once in permanence. You build process around the role, then headcount around the process, and three years later the workaround is load-bearing and removing it is a reorg. The cheapest time to not hire the workaround is before you hire it.
The test
Before the next operational hire, ask one question: if software could do this reliably, would I still want a person doing it? Sometimes the answer is a clear yes, and that is your signal to hire well. But often the honest answer is no, you would want a person only because you assume software cannot. That assumption is the thing that changed.
We are not saying gut your team. We are saying stop hiring people to be the glue between systems, and let the people you do hire do the work that needed a human. The best operators we know are relieved when the busywork goes. It was never the part they were proud of.
Build your company brain, hire your first AI employee, and see what your team does when the busywork is gone.
