Strength Coach Chronicles – Systems of Hiring & Firing

8 People Quit In July
I have a lot of hours to cover each week between my staff and me. Between the 3 gyms and our digital programming, supporting well over 500 clients, all training 3-4 times per week. When one person quits, it is hard; when 8 people quit, it is a mess

This is not the first time something like this happened, and it certainly won’t be the last. However, in this particular instance, I am busier than I have ever been. Father of 3, with a wife who works full-time and travels 2 to 3 times per month, is at the top of my list of priorities. Behind that, I have been operating three gyms and 20 to 30 coaches that manage classes of 12 to 18, small private sessions of 5 to 6, one-on-one training, and private consultations. Lastly, but currently most pressing, is my personal roster of clients: 35 private training clients who are training 2 to 5 times per week, totaling over 120 hours of sessions each week. Throw in that I mentor several coaches through my collective and serve on the boards of advisors for 2 companies. I am busy.

The bandwidth to handle anyone quitting is at an all-time low. So how do I manage it? Let’s discuss.

Prioritization is key

It is fairly simple when you think about it, but what needs to be done immediately takes priority. Then, for what is not currently a problem but will happen again, create a system to reduce the impact each time. The ability to prioritize what is important is crucial to how all this works. You cannot manage things properly unless you can manage yourself.

I will give you a cheat code: you have to develop the skill of prioritizing. I have been a director for over 15 years now. Early on, everything was a priority. As I have evolved as a director, priorities have been refined into manageable parts. I look at things differently than I once did. Having 8 people quit in a month and needing to cover 60 hours, on top of all the future time commitments of interviewing, hiring, and training, is not as big a deal as it once was. All it is now is a higher-tier priority. That is where systems come in.

A system should not be designed to prevent every conceivable problem. It should be designed to identify and respond to the problems that actually constrain throughput.

1. The mistake: building systems around hypothetical problems

The problem is that you can end up with an enormous system designed around problems that never occur. The system becomes a bureaucracy rather than a source of leverage. And worse, because the system was designed before the problem existed, the people operating within it often don’t understand why the rule exists. When circumstances change, they either:

2. The alternative: problems create systems

Problem → Pattern → Bottleneck → System → Delegation → Feedback → Adaptation

You don’t create a system simply because you think something might happen. You create a system because you’ve observed a recurring pattern that consumes resources, creates inconsistency, or limits throughput. You change the system so that the organization becomes better at handling that class of problems.

3. This changes what “systematize” means

Because you’re not trying to eliminate human judgment. You’re trying to move the organization up the capability ladder. A problem that initially requires your personal intervention might go through this progression: You solve it, you explain how you solved it,  Staff solve it using your framework, Staff recognize the problem before it becomes significant, Staff modify the system when the old solution no longer works That’s organizational maturity.

4. And this is where horizontal leadership becomes critical

If every problem has to move vertically: Coach → Supervisor → Director → You, then you become the bottleneck. And that’s precisely the opposite of what a good system should accomplish. Instead, the person closest to the problem needs enough authority, information, and ownership to address it. The current leader remains the decision point.

The person responsible for that domain owns the problem. The person experiencing the bottleneck sees things you don’t see.

5. But empowerment can’t mean “do whatever you want”

Delegation isn’t transferring responsibility while retaining all authority. That creates a completely different relationship with SOPs. The SOP isn’t the answer. The SOP is the best answer we’ve found so far.

6. The system needs to be designed to be challenged

A good system doesn’t just tell people what to do. It tells them what to do when the system stops working. Because eventually the environment changes.

• The staff changes.
• The athletes change.
• The workload changes.
• The technology changes.
• The constraints change.

And therefore the solution that worked six months ago may become the new bottleneck. So the system needs a built-in question: “What happens when this doesn’t work?” If the answer is: “Ask Tim.” Then Tim is still the system. If the answer is: “Identify the failure, determine whether it is an isolated event or recurring pattern, diagnose the constraint, and propose an adjustment.”Now you’ve created organizational capability.

7. This gives you a really interesting feedback loop

I’d visualize your system like this:

1. PROBLEM
2. IS IT RECURRING?
3. IS IT LIMITING THROUGHPUT?
4. IDENTIFY THE CONSTRAINT
5. DEVELOP / MODIFY THE SYSTEM
6. EMPOWER THE DOMAIN OWNER
7. IMPLEMENT
8. MEASURE THROUGHPUT
9. DID THE BOTTLENECK MOVE?
10. NEW CONSTRAINT EMERGES
11. SYSTEM EVOLVES

You don’t permanently eliminate constraints. You move them. Which means the system’s goal isn’t to create a perfect organization. The goal is to continually move the constraint forward. So the loop becomes:

Solve today’s constraint → build capability → increase throughput → expose the next constraint → solve that constraint.

Time management isn’t about squeezing more tasks into your day. It’s about preventing yourself from becoming the constraint.

8 People Hired In August
We replaced everyone. It wasn’t easy, but we got it done. 35 phone interviews (10 no-shows), 15 in-person interviews, 12 people hired, 4 people quit during training. The end result was being able to maintain momentum in the business and get all shifts covered! Figure out prioritization and then build systems and do amazing things!