Many leaders hire ops personnel to "clean up the mess." However, without a strategic mandate to fix the root data architecture, these hires often get stuck in a perpetual cycle of data cleanup, reinforcing the broken, legacy system they were brought in to solve.

Related Insights

The primary barrier to deploying AI agents at scale isn't the models but poor data infrastructure. The vast majority of organizations have immature data systems—uncatalogued, siloed, or outdated—making them unprepared for advanced AI and setting them up for failure.

Exceptional people in flawed systems will produce subpar results. Before focusing on individual performance, leaders must ensure the underlying systems are reliable and resilient. As shown by the Southwest Airlines software meltdown, blaming employees for systemic failures masks the root cause and prevents meaningful improvement.

The frantic scramble to assemble data for board meetings isn't a sign of poor planning. It's a clear indicator that your underlying data model is flawed, preventing a unified view of performance and forcing manual, last-minute efforts that destroy team productivity and leadership credibility.

When pipeline slips, leaders default to launching more experiments and adopting new tools. This isn't strategic; it's a panicked reaction stemming from an outdated data model that can't diagnose the real problem. Leaders are taught that the solution is to 'do more,' which adds noise to an already chaotic system.

Many leaders focus on data for backward-looking reporting, treating it like infrastructure. The real value comes from using data strategically for prediction and prescription. This requires foundational investment in technology, architecture, and machine learning capabilities to forecast what will happen and what actions to take.

According to the 'dark side' of Metcalfe's Law, each new team member exponentially increases the number of communication channels. This hidden cost of complexity often outweighs the added capacity, leading to more miscommunication and lost information. Improving operational efficiency is often a better first step than hiring.

The most critical action isn't technical; it's an act of vulnerability. Leaders must stop pretending and tell their CEO/CRO they lack the data architecture to be a responsible leader, framing it as a business-critical problem. This candor is the true catalyst for change.

The primary reason multi-million dollar AI initiatives stall or fail is not the sophistication of the models, but the underlying data layer. Traditional data infrastructure creates delays in moving and duplicating information, preventing the real-time, comprehensive data access required for AI to deliver business value. The focus on algorithms misses this foundational roadblock.

Getting approval for an operations hire is difficult because they aren't directly tied to new revenue. Instead of a vague promise of "efficiency," build a business case by quantifying the cost of a broken process—like a high lead disqualification rate—and show how the hire will unlock that hidden pipeline.

The biggest blind spot for new managers is the temptation to fix individual problems themselves (e.g., a piece of bad code). This doesn't scale. They must elevate their thinking to solve the system that creates the problems (e.g., why bad code is being written in the first place).