Today's world is all about time. Time we take driving to and from work. Time on Facebook. Time we have to be at work. Time we have left for family. Not enough time...
We are constantly thinking about how much time we have and if we are making the most of the time we have left.
But do we really think about time when it comes to what we need for our business?
I am still contacted by recruiters asking me if I want to do x, y, z contract for this public sector body or that company. All are in need of communications or marketing expertise. All are full time contracts. All are pretty good day rates.
But do they really need me there full time? Do they really need to go through a complex recruitment process? No I really don't think so. A recent contract ended up with me cutting back my days to 3 days a week. Sounds stupid putting myself out of work. But I was wasting their time and mine. I could have just sat there and used up time and got paid but I wasn't being productive, I would just have been taking up desk space. So I cut back to what time I needed to deliver what they needed me to do.
The same question should be considered for any recruitment. The common instinct is to get in permanent, full time staff. It's the immediate solution to the problem of 'We really need to make an impact/we are launching/ we have to get x message out... we want happier employees..' The list really goes on.
But the common thing is the view that only full time will work. And that leads to a big problem: how do we - especially those start ups, SMEs and those looking to take the next step up - balance the need for both strategic expertise and delivery nouse but on a tight budget?
The answer is usually to compromise and put delivery over strategy. The cost of someone with vast experience is only considered if there is enough business coming in and the marketing team has grown to need a 'boss'. Mostly I see businesses bringing in someone mid-level. This is not necessarily the wrong solution, but maybe there is another solution. What about asking do we need full time, can we gain more thinking differently about how we split this 'full time' role?
My view is that you really should pay for what you need most and bring in the specialist bits when needed. It could end up being a 4 day a week mid-level mixed with a 2 day a week senior/top level strategist. With one or 2 days over lap, you get the direction and the delivery all at the same time just in a different structure. Or you could just bring in a senior level person on a project basis. Maybe end up with only 1/2 days a month, but this will be highly productive time and time well spent.
The reality is that a lot of companies, including a few contracts I've done, don't need someone at a top strategic level full time. They need someone to step in and do an initial heavy load, then ease off to maybe 1-2 days per week to keep the show on the road. What they do need more of after the initial set up is someone to keep all the wheels spinning. Someone who can deliver, deliver, deliver great copy, social media and website updates. That sort of mid level work.
By doing this, time is working on your side. You get the best of both worlds and costs are controllable. You don't end up paying a high salary for someone to do a lot of copywriting and you aren't missing out on the expertise you need by recruiting someone who is more skilled at the delivery end.
This is something I keep discussing with people and it looks like more and more and starting to see the benefit of thinking about staff time not just staff need. While on one hand I could be doing myself out of work, on the other I see this as creating more work that is better suited to the right people at the right time.
If this is something you are thinking about, get in touch - sometimes it just takes a fresh set of eyes to look at the best way to provide the best mix of depth of experience and pace of delivery.
