The hire most firms get wrong

A lot of firms turn to offshore staffing primarily to increase preparation capacity. Why do you think firms should be thinking just as carefully about where review capacity sits?

Adding preparation capacity does not necessarily mean the firm can complete more work. Someone still needs to review it, resolve questions and decide what can go to the client.

If all those tasks remain with the partner, another preparer may increase the amount of work waiting for their attention. Before hiring, I would look at where the work is actually getting stuck. Are people waiting for someone to prepare the accounts, or for someone to review and explain them?

The reviewer also needs to be available when questions arise. That is where working-hour overlap becomes important, especially when the role includes client communication.

You’ve described a model that combines a Southeast Asian delivery team with more senior accounting professionals in Latin America. How can that structure work in practice, and what responsibilities would you typically assign to each layer of the team?

For a firm that already has a successful Southeast Asian delivery team, I would not suggest replacing it simply to change locations. One option is to add a senior accountant, accounting manager or controller in Latin America who has substantial overlap with US working hours.

The delivery team could handle reconciliations, schedules and other clearly defined preparation work. The senior person could review the work, resolve routine questions, coordinate the close and communicate with clients within an agreed scope. The US firm would retain the oversight and final approval required for the engagement.

This should follow the person’s demonstrated skills, not their location. There are strong senior professionals in both regions. Relevant accounting experience, English and the ability to explain decisions need to be assessed individually.

What are the signs that the next hire should be a senior reviewer or manager rather than another preparer?

I would look at what keeps reaching the partner. Is completed work waiting for review? Does the partner repeatedly have to explain the same issues, chase missing information or handle routine client questions?

Those can be signs that the team needs someone who can manage the work, rather than another person to prepare it.

However, first check whether the existing team has clear responsibilities and enough authority. A senior hire will also struggle if nobody knows who can approve an assumption or when an issue must be escalated.

The interview should reflect the gap. For a review role, ask the candidate to work through an incomplete file, prioritize the issues and explain what they would discuss with the client.

What metrics should firms track to determine whether their staffing model is truly freeing senior capacity?

I would track review turnaround, rework, unresolved exceptions and how much time the partner spends on routine questions. I would also check whether completed work reaches the client on time.

The important distinction is between necessary oversight and avoidable intervention. A partner approving a significant judgment is different from a partner repeatedly chasing a missing document.

Compare the same types of engagement before and after the change, allowing for workload and complexity. Lower hourly rates or more completed preparation tasks do not, by themselves, show that senior capacity has been freed.

Tuesday's newsletter: The hidden cost of using free AI tools
The most recent Q&A: The 3-question test for every task in your firm
In the vault: Every firm growth and efficiency lesson we've published for small firms this year