Three clients asked me the same question this month
I've been having the same conversation with three different clients in the last month.
They're all growing. They all need senior leadership support. And they're all stuck on the same question:
Do we hire a full-time executive? Or do we figure out how to develop the people we already have?
Here's what nobody's telling them: there's a third option.
Bring in fractional senior leadership who can provide immediate support AND develop your existing team at the same time.
Not a consultant who advises from the outside. Someone embedded in your business, working alongside your team, building capability while providing strategic leadership.
I'm seeing more leaders choose this route. And honestly? For a lot of situations, it's smarter than either hiring full-time or trying to develop people on your own.
Here's why.
The Problem
You need help. Your business is at a stage where you need senior leadership support.
But hiring a full-time COO or VP feels like a big commitment. $150K-$300K+ salary. 3-6 month search. Cultural fit is a gamble. And if it doesn't work out, it's expensive and messy to unwind.
Meanwhile, you WANT to develop your existing team. You have people with potential. But you don't have the bandwidth to actually train them yourself. And promoting them before they're ready is a recipe for failure.
So you're stuck.
Hire externally and potentially block your team's growth path?
Or keep doing everything yourself while hoping your team magically develops?
Here's what I'm seeing work: embedded fractional leadership.
What This Actually Looks Like
Instead of hiring a full-time executive, you bring in someone fractional who:
Provides immediate senior leadership support (strategy, decision-making, operations)
Works IN your business (not as an external consultant, but embedded in your team)
Actively develops your existing leaders (coaching, workshops, real-time feedback)
Builds systems and processes your team will own
Transitions out once your team is ready (or stays fractional as ongoing support)
You get external expertise without the full-time commitment. And you develop your bench at the same time.
When This Makes More Sense Than Hiring Full-Time
I'm not saying fractional is always the answer. Sometimes you absolutely need a full-time hire.
But fractional makes more sense when:
You need expertise but not 40 hours/week permanently
You're growing and need support NOW but aren't sure the role needs to be permanent
You have emerging leaders who need development and guidance
You want external perspective but don't want to disrupt your culture
Budget doesn't support $200K+ for a full-time executive right now
You're in transition (exit planning, succession, restructuring) and need temporary senior support
Full-time makes more sense when:
The role genuinely requires 40+ hours/week ongoing
You need someone to OWN a function permanently (not just build it)
You've tried developing internally and truly don't have the potential
Timeline is years, not months
A Real Example
I'm working with a business owner right now who's navigating exactly this.
Growing company. Needs operational leadership. Has someone on the team with potential but they're not ready yet.
He didn't want to hire a full-time COO and potentially block this person's path. But he also couldn't wait years for them to develop on their own.
So we're building a development plan. Quarterly leadership workshops for the emerging leaders. Structured coaching. Real-time feedback in actual business situations.
He gets the senior leadership support he needs now. His team is developing with clear milestones. And in 12-18 months, they'll be ready to own what we're building together.
That's the model. Provide support now. Develop the team. Transition ownership as they're ready.
Why I'm Seeing This Work
The leaders who choose this route usually have a few things in common:
They value their existing team and want to invest in them.
They need external expertise but don't want someone who swoops in, takes over, and doesn't teach anyone.
They're comfortable with temporary support that builds long-term capability.
They'd rather spend money developing their people than replacing them.
It's not about saving money (though fractional is less expensive than full-time). It's about building something that lasts.
What to Consider
If you're facing this decision, here are the questions I'd ask:
Do you have someone internally with potential?
If yes, fractional support to develop them might be smarter than hiring over them
If no, you probably need a full-time hire
Is this a permanent need or a transitional one?
Permanent = full-time hire
Transitional (building capability, navigating change, developing leaders) = fractional makes sense
Do you need 40 hours/week or strategic support at key moments?
40 hours = full-time
Strategic bursts + development = fractional works
What's your timeline?
Need someone in the seat for years = full-time
Need to build capability over 6-18 months = fractional can work
What matters more: immediate execution or long-term capability?
Both matter, but if building your team's capability is the priority, fractional embedded support is designed for that
The Bottom Line
You don't have to choose between hiring externally or developing internally.
You can bring in fractional senior leadership who does both: provides the expertise you need now while building your team's capability for the future.
Not every situation calls for this. But for leaders who want to invest in their existing team while getting immediate senior support, it's an option worth considering.
If you're stuck on this decision and want to think through whether fractional embedded leadership makes sense for your situation, reply to this email. Happy to talk through what would work best.
Talk soon,
Kasey
P.S. The best hires I've seen aren't always permanent. Sometimes the smartest move is bringing in someone who builds what you need, develops your team, and transitions out when the work is done.