Two hiring strategies clash: one argues your first hire should be an admin to free your time, the other says hire whoever solves your biggest problem, whether that's getting customers or building capacity. An entry-level assistant adds overhead without revenue; an experienced hire in sales or operations pays for itself faster.
I believe your first hire should be an admin, not an agent, because I'm telling you, even if you want to bring on an agent, you're still doing administrative tasks, you're trying to train an agent, you're trying to sell yourself. Now you're trying to wear 3 hats, right? Whereas if you bring on an admin, you can get rid of a lot of hats and then open your calendar back up so you can focus on revenue generation.
Yeah, I just disagree. I mean, this might be the right advice if you're an insurance agent or real estate agent, which is I think who he's talking to, so I'm not trying to hate here, but for actual business owners running larger organizations, an assistant is one of the worst first hires that you can make. When you hire an assistant, what you're actually doing is you're trading a lot of simple tasks that you can likely do in your sleep or in your spare time with a far more complex task called managing an assistant. At the end of the day, all businesses have two constraints. They either don't have enough customers or they don't have enough capacity to fulfill the customers that they have. Your first hire should be someone who can actually solve one of those two constraints, whichever one is the biggest. If you do this, that hire is gonna have a positive return on investment and it's gonna happen quickly. And if you hire an experienced leader, this person isn't gonna require nearly as much management as an entry-level employee like an assistant. Hiring people to buy back more of your time is great. What's even better than that though is hiring people who can make you money when you aren't even having to work. And I'm sorry, but an assistant just isn't going to do that.
