Work is piling up and the obvious answer is another person. Before you open the role, find out whether the queue is waiting on capacity or on a decision nobody owns, because the two need opposite fixes.
The backlog keeps growing. Deadlines slip a few days at a time, which is somehow worse than slipping a week, because a few days never gets escalated. Your best people say they're underwater, and you believe them, because they are.
So you open a role, the one lever that feels available, it's easy to justify, and everyone in the room agrees the team is stretched. Six months later the new person is hired, trained, and busy, and the backlog is about the same size it was.
What a real capacity shortage looks like
A true shortage of people has a particular shape. Work arrives, someone picks it up right away, carries it forward without stopping, and finishes it, and the only reason more doesn't get done is that there aren't enough hours. Everyone is busy with the work itself instead of with chasing it.
Real capacity shortages are rarer than they sound. In most operations that feel short-staffed, the work itself isn't what's filling people's days. The overhead around it is: following up, re-explaining, waiting, checking whether something was ever decided, and redoing pieces that came back.
Adding a person to a real capacity problem adds capacity. Adding a person to a coordination problem adds coordination, which gets worse with every hire, because each new person is another party to every handoff and another context to keep up to date.
Follow one piece of work
The quickest way to tell which situation you're in is to set the general question aside and look at one real example.
Take a single piece of work from last month that took too long, a specific one instead of a typical one. Trace its life from the moment it entered the business to the moment it was genuinely finished, noting every point where it moved and every point where it stopped.
Add up the time in two separate columns: the time someone was actively working on it, and the time it was sitting. In an operation that truly needs more people, most of the elapsed time lands in the first column. In most operations that only feel short-staffed, most of it lands in the second, and that sitting time isn't idleness, it's work waiting on something.
In every status report ever written, "waiting on a decision" and "being worked on" look the same, since both read as "in progress," which is how an operation can be mostly queue and still report as busy, and why the person who feels it most is whoever keeps having to ask.
What the waiting is made of
Usually three things, roughly in this order.
Decisions nobody owns. Something needs a call, and it isn't obvious whose call it is, so it waits, or it goes to the most senior person around, who is also the least available. Nobody experiences that as a delay they caused, and everybody experiences it as someone else being slow.
Rework, because "finished" was never defined. Work gets handed on when one person stops touching it, the next person finds it incomplete by their own standard, and back it goes. Two people were busy and nothing moved, and hiring a third just means three people doing the same dance.
Exceptions handled on instinct. The standard path doesn't cover every case, so the cases it misses get handled by whoever notices, from experience and off the record. That works until there are enough exceptions that your most capable person spends their week on them, which is the same week you hoped they'd spend clearing the backlog.
None of those three is solved by another pair of hands, and each gets slightly worse with one.
Reading the answer
Run the exercise on one piece of work and one of two things will be true.
If working time dominates and the waiting is short, you have a capacity problem and you should hire. You'll also know exactly what kind of person to hire, which isn't always the role you first pictured.
If waiting dominates, name what each wait was for. A wait on a decision means that decision needs an owner, and usually needs to move down a level so it stops queuing behind someone's meetings. A wait caused by returned work means that step needs a definition of done written down as something people can check. A wait caused by an unusual case means that case needs a route of its own, so it can stop being unusual.
That work is unglamorous, needs no budget approval, and usually returns capacity faster than hiring does, because it frees up time you're already paying for.
Hiring adds capacity, and it doesn't create ownership, define done, or route an exception. When work is waiting instead of being worked on, a new person joins the queue instead of shortening it, so follow one real piece of work end to end, split its time into working and waiting, and let that decide.
The honest version
Sometimes a team is simply short-handed, and every hour spent diagnosing is an hour the backlog grows. Even so, it's worth an afternoon to find out which situation you're in, because from the inside the two look identical and they respond to opposite treatments. Getting it wrong costs more than a salary, it costs a year of believing the problem was handled.
Set up your own operating environment.
Starter is $299, bought online, with no sales call.