The Rise of the 2-for-1 Hire?
Companies continue to need to find creative ways to meet budget while hiring the talent required to succeed. I’m observing a lot of ways of doing this (hello boom of fractional talent!), but one that I’m interested in understanding more about is the 2-for-1 hire.
What do I mean?
I mean a new hire (often an executive) is hired to lead more than one function. Sometimes it’s explicit in the title (ie, Chief Product and Technology Officer) and sometimes it’s buried in the language of a job function (ie, a COO job description outlining that the existing accounting function will report to them). I recognize this simply makes sense at early stage companies - there isn’t really a need for that much executive firepower yet. But I’m also seeing this at later stages (or teams not evolving these structures as they grow).
Reflecting on this, I can see a few advantages:
Cost Containment: Obvious. You might have to hire someone a bit more expensive, but you should see savings overall. There may be additional contract or software costs to help cover the skill gap - but if you aren’t saving some cash with this decision, you’ve likely missed the mark along the way.
Better Alignment: In theory, having multiple functions run into a single leader should make those functions communicate more often and effectively. Again, in theory - I can certainly think of some moments in my professional life where this didn’t happen and it made things worse. A lot of this coming to fruition will be in the leader’s communication skills.
Growth Opportunities: For both the executive and their teams, the ability to take on stretch projects, learn new skills, etc is more readily available. This can be a career multiplier for many folks across the team.
And, yet, I also see challenges:
Lack of Expertise: Seems simple, but it’s hard for someone to be an expert in a multitude of topics. You will need to choose the priority you are hiring for, and also look for the ability to learn/grow on the job as well to round out skills.
Unsupported Team: The 2-for-1’s calendar is often stretched thin, resulting in less oversight and more hands-off management. While this can be empowering for some team members, it often comes with lack of feedback, ineffective cascading communications, and the ability for the team to focus on the wrong thing.
Lopsided Execution: You run the risk of this executive having a preference for executing in the part of the role they are most comfortable with. When someone has a long to-do list and many competing priorities, they often default to the thing they know best. If the hierarchy in the role aligns to someone’s strengths, this could be a bit of a moot point, but I would generally argue this is an issue to think through.
Less Rigorous Decision Making: When I talk to a founder about adding a new executive to their leadership team, one of the things that is universally hoped for is that another smart mind in the room will improve decision making. The 2-for-1 hiring with execs keeps the leadership team smaller for longer, thus less ability for the type of multi-faceted decision making most companies need. (Although, arguably, one could argue here that a smaller leadership team leads to quicker decision making - but I think this is more cultural than anything.)
Missing Representation: With a smaller executive team, you are less likely for this team to represent the diverse populations in both your customer and employee populations.
I have discussed this with a few leaders-in-transition, and one statement has come up more often than others: How do I position myself to take advantage of this trend?
A few thoughts:
Position Yourself Correctly: I often find myself reflecting on the fact that much of the job search is more like an advertising campaign than anything. You need to present the version of yourself that makes the reader say, “I want to talk to this person.” Now, don’t misunderstand this as advice to lie or deceive. Rather, this is a reminder that you have the power to position yourself to have the greatest chance of success. Start to highlight the multiple strengths you have relevant to a role instead of the same version to everyone.
Leverage Technology to Fill the Gaps: In our current moment of AI tools being used everywhere, you are uniquely positioned to harness technology to help you increase knowledge and improve skillset. Teams are looking for individuals who can leverage emerging tech to make them better and more productive in their work - this seems like an ideal use case.
Be Self Aware: Generally, I want to hire someone who can do the job well as it stands today AND have room for growth. If you come across a 2-for-1 opportunity, I would hope it presents well to highlight where you can execute immediately and where you are excited to grow while in the role.
So, what are you seeing and hearing on this topic? Would you be excited for an opportunity like this, or are businesses and teams disadvantaging themselves by employing this model? Curious to hear from you!
Product Exec & Growth-Stage Advisor | B2B SaaS, AI, Marketplaces | I help your early-stage product get to $100M ARR quickly and sustainably
4moI love the piece, Jim Conti. It's very much in line with what I'm seeing in the product space, where CPTO has become a far more sought-after title.
Transformation Wrangler | Precision AI Adoption | Predictable AI Strategy, Implementation, and ROI | We Guarantee Results
4moIn smaller companies with founders who are growing fast - the leader may be managing a single employee but they’re also starting to manage agents / automations to extend the company’s resources farther, faster. I will probably never hire much of a back office. Most of it is digital and automated anyway. What I want is someone to keep an eye on it to make sure we’re watching the right KPIs.
Making nearshore tech hiring as easy as hiring in the U.S. Helped 350+ companies build world-class LatAm engineering teams.
4moGreat insights into the rising trend of the "2-for-1 hire" model! Another highly effective way companies can significantly reduce costs—often by 50% or more—is by leveraging nearshore talent, especially in tech and engineering roles. By hiring skilled professionals from countries like Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, or Mexico, companies not only drastically lower payroll expenses compared to US-based talent but also benefit from highly qualified teams operating in similar time zones, with strong English skills and cultural alignment. This approach retains quality, ensures seamless collaboration, and enhances operational efficiency while significantly cutting costs. We've seen this model deliver tremendous savings without sacrificing expertise or productivity, making it an ideal solution for budget-conscious companies aiming for sustainable growth. Many of your portfolio companies have captured the value of this strategy :)
Strategy & Transformation Executive | Chief of Staff | Former BofA SVP | Expert in Operations, Organizational Development & Scalable Growth | MBA, Summa Cum Laude
4moJim Conti this is such a timely and nuanced take. The 2-for-1 hire can unlock alignment and agility, but only when paired with strong self-awareness, strategic prioritization, and the right support structures. I especially appreciate the callout around representation and leadership depth. It’s not just about efficiency; it’s about sustainability, too. Looking forward to more of your reflections! 👏
Great first piece, Jim - keep them coming please. I agree with your observations about advantages and challenges. Here's my add...the 2-for-1 approach can pose a challenge when it comes time for the company's structure to evolve in a way that requires 2 distinct roles and leaders. This typically happens due to growth, but a 2-for-1 leader who doesn't want to give up part of their role will put a damper on an otherwise exciting time for the company. It's important to hire someone who understands this split will likely happen in the future (in fact, that should be the goal, right?) and can put the greater good ahead of self.