The surface is rarely where the answers are.
The context
Have you ever worked so hard for so long only to end up right back where you started?
Most of us have.
Add more people, yet execution slows.
Reorgs and reorgs and same challenges remain.
Work more hours and stay one beat behind.
Everyone is smart. Everyone is working hard. Everyone is acting on the best information they have.
All that raw effort and no real traction.
Background #
A decade in technology companies, working on compensation and operating systems while teams scaled through chaos.
I've become obsessed with throughput and velocity vs merely implementing processes, programs, and procedures.
A change in job architecture that improves hiring.
A different talent profile that prevents new management layers.
A single conversation that restores trust after a period of uncertainty.
One small change that unlocks outsized results.
Throughput and velocity
When there's friction, my instinct isn't to ask: What should we change?
It's to ask: What's the root cause?
A better question can save endless hours of rework.
On decision-making
The untangling comes down to a few simple asks.
What matters now?
What can wait?
What is a symptom?
And, what is the actual constraint?
Solve for today. Iterate from there. The answers are usually just one level deeper: not ten. One.
A few things I've noticed #
A hiring challenge
A hyper-growth company experienced a burst of declined AI engineering offers over a matter of months. The assumption was that the recruiting process needed improvement.
Job-family classification. Once the structure was corrected, offer declines disappeared.
A scaling challenge
A founder was frustrated that engineers required constant direction. The assumption was that the team needed more support.
Organizational design. The capabilities being requested didn't match the talent profile being hired. A different structure created a different outcome.
A forecasting challenge
A company was shocked by the projected cost of scaling their engineering organization. The assumption was that market rates had outpaced their budget.
Broad-based grade inflation. The levels had drifted, not the market. Rightsizing the architecture closed the gap and restored room to hire.
A retention challenge
A rapidly growing workforce was losing half of new hires within 90 days. The assumption was that the company needed additional engagement initiatives.
Market alignment. An adjustment of less than fifty cents per hour changed the pattern entirely.
Compensation as a lens #
Many of the questions I'm interested in eventually show up in compensation.
It's less about data (though I do love a good spreadsheet), and more about visibility and impact.
AI and what comes next
AI is changing everything we know about pay.
Jobs are changing.
Incentives are changing.
The relationship between effort and output is changing.
Increasingly, time feels more constrained than capital.
The companies I've seen adapt best are willing to pause, ask better questions, and then move decisively.
People who've shaped how I think
Talent density, honesty, and treating people like adults.
Evidence, experimentation, and measuring outcomes > pure activity.
Sustained attention > constant activity.
How our brains actually experience uncertainty.
Just a few big thinkers whose work I keep coming back to.
I work with founders and operators who want to move faster by understanding what's actually slowing them down. A small number of engagements each year. If that sounds like you:
leia@hellomarshall.com