Can you hire someone to run your business? What it actually takes

Yes, eventually, and rarely by hiring someone and stepping back. The person you hire has to be mentored into the judgment you carry, and that takes longer the more built your business is and the further the hire starts from your world. Pick the person, then teach them the business the way the trades teach the craft.

Why does every owner you ask say it can't be done?

Because most of them have tried it the way it's usually described, and it didn't work.

The advice is everywhere right now, and it's delivered with real confidence. Hire the operator. Buy back your time. Build the business that runs without you. Then you go and ask the owners you actually know, the ones with trucks or staff or a book of clients, and you get a very different answer. They interviewed three people. None of them were good enough. One lasted five months. A man with two adult children working in his own store will tell you, without flinching, that neither of them could take it over.

Give that objection its strongest form, because it deserves one. The people saying it aren't lazy and they aren't making excuses. They ran the experiment. They hired, they watched it fail, and they drew the obvious conclusion from their own evidence. If you've asked eight owners and none of them has done it, "this is basically impossible" is a reasonable read of the data in front of you.

It's also the wrong diagnosis, and the gap between those two things is the whole article.

What are you actually asking a new hire to take over?

Twenty years of calls you've never explained to anybody.

Which jobs are worth quoting. What a difficult client sounds like on the first phone call. When to walk from a deal that pencils out fine on paper. How much rework you eat before you say something. Which supplier you phone when the usual one falls through, and why it's that one. None of that is written anywhere, and most of it would be hard to write even if you sat down to try, because you've never had to say it out loud. You just know.

Nonaka and Takeuchi named this in The Knowledge-Creating Company (Oxford University Press, 1995). They split what an organisation knows into explicit knowledge, "contained in manuals and procedures," and tacit knowledge, "learned only by experience, and communicated only indirectly, through metaphor and analogy." That second kind is most of what makes you good at running your business. It moves from one person to another through experience and conversation, over time, which is a precise description of mentoring.

So picture the interview from the candidate's side. You're asking them to show command of a body of knowledge that has never been written down or taught, in forty-five minutes, against a standard you're holding in your head. Of course nobody clears that bar. The hire was never going to walk in holding it. The question is whether you're prepared to hand it over.

How common is this problem?

Almost every owner is heading for it, and very few have a plan.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed its members and found 76% of small business owners planning to exit within a decade, with over $2 trillion in business assets attached. Only "one in 10 business owners (9%) have a formal business succession plan in place." Asked what was in the way, 54% named "finding a suitable buyer or a successor," 43% were struggling to measure the value of the business, and 39% said "the business is too reliant on them for day-to-day operations."

Read the first and last of those together. Half the owners name a casting problem. Two in five name the condition behind it. Those look like separate obstacles in the survey, and they're one problem seen from two sides: a business that leans on its owner every day is exactly the business nobody can step into cold.

Why did the trades solve this for the craft and not for the business?

Because apprenticeship was built to pass on the work, and nobody extended it to the running of the company.

The trades already know that mentorship is how skill moves from one person to the next. That's why apprenticeship programs exist at all. A first-year apprentice isn't expected to wire a panel from a manual. They learn it beside someone who has done it a thousand times, getting it slightly wrong under supervision until they get it right. Nobody in the trades thinks that's inefficient. It's the only way the knowledge actually transfers.

The trouble is that the apprenticeships cover the trade itself, and there are very few for leadership or business development. In most programs that side of the work simply isn't covered. A journeyman can finish able to do excellent work without ever having been taught how to quote a job, run a crew, handle a difficult client, or read a job's margin before it's too late.

A 2025 report for Canada's Future Skills Centre, Skilled Trades and Entrepreneurship: The Need for Business Competencies, describes the same gap from the research side. Self-employed tradespeople "may possess strong technical expertise but often lack the entrepreneurial competencies needed to sustain and grow their businesses," and the support available to them "is generally provided through technical training." It's a bigger group than people assume: in 2021, 20.3% of general trades workers were self-employed, against 14.1% of all workers.

Some firms built the missing apprenticeship themselves. Delta Pipeline, a utility contractor in Long Beach, California, sold 100% of the company to its employees in 2017. Project Equity's profile describes entry-level pipelayer helpers with no experience becoming pipelayers, foremen, superintendents and project engineers, through an internal training program the company runs called Delta Pipeline University. The founders started sharing profits twenty years before the sale. Co-founder Craig Danley is honest that the leadership half is the hard half: "It's a leadership mindset and how do you transfer that over and help people learn how to have that mindset."

That's the apprenticeship most founder-led businesses are missing, and it's why the manager you hire keeps looking unqualified. You're comparing a first-year apprentice to a master and calling the gap a hiring failure.

How long does it take to mentor someone into the business?

It depends on two things: how built your business is, and who you're bringing in.

The more established the business, the more there is to hand over and the more it matters that some of it gets written down. A two-person firm can often run the handover entirely through conversation. A firm with forty people, a few hundred clients and a decade of habits can't, because too much of the business lives in too many places for one mentoring relationship to carry.

Sundt Construction is the documented example at the large end. The NCEO case study (Jessica Thomas, National Center for Employee Ownership, 2012) describes a company-wide succession requirement in one sentence:

"Each person is required to identify up to five possible successor candidates, assess their skills, identify weaknesses/skill deficiencies, create benchmarks for training, and estimate a timeline for readiness."

That's what mentoring looks like once a business is big enough that it has to be organised on purpose: candidates named, gaps identified, training benchmarked, readiness dated. Most founder-led firms don't need anything that formal, and they shouldn't take on the paperwork of a company ten times their size. They do need the thing underneath it, which is a named person and a deliberate plan to teach them.

Then there's the person, and from what I've seen the timeline changes a lot with who you hire. Someone from your own industry moves fastest, because the craft is already there and you're only teaching them your business. Someone straight out of college takes longer, because you're teaching both. Someone seasoned can go either way: the experience helps, unless they're stuck in how their last company did things, and then it can take longer than starting from scratch.

And the handover doesn't have to be a hire at all. Building the business alongside a partner, co-creating it from early on, is a legitimate way to get there. The mentoring still has to happen. It just runs in both directions.

What does a handover look like when it goes wrong?

I learned a version of this in ministry, before any of it had a business name.

I was the project leader on a curriculum project at our church, and I'd been given the authority to make it happen. Eighteen months in, it fell apart. Looking back, the reasons are clear enough. We didn't really get feedback from the pastors and directors who were implementing it in their ministries. We thought we did, and it wasn't good enough. We never did proper buy-in. There was a missing layer of leadership between the decision and the people carrying it out, and the authority I'd been given was mostly verbal and never followed up on.

We also never celebrated anything. People care about the things that get celebrated, and marking the milestones of what we were trying to build would have been a smart move. And I was probably a little arrogant as the project leader. I assumed everybody would love it, that it was the best thing, and that I was the best person for the job, when a more collaborative approach would have served everyone better. That's all hindsight.

A founder handing over a business walks into the same traps. Authority given verbally and never reinforced. A successor making calls without real feedback. A layer missing between the owner's decisions and the people living with them. No milestones marked, so nobody knows whether it's working. And an owner who is quietly certain that his way is obviously right and that everyone will see it. The fix I'd take back to that church project is the fix for the business: slower, more collaborative, with feedback that's actually heard and progress that's actually celebrated.

Is this a hiring problem or an architecture problem?

Architecture, and it starts with positioning.

The four things every business runs on are a position, a way work arrives, a way work closes, and a way clients stay. Positioning sits first because the other three inherit from it: who the business serves, what the right job looks like, what the business refuses. A successor can't make those calls the way you would until they know what you're actually building and for whom. That's the first thing to teach, and it's the part owners most often assume the new person will just pick up.

This is a different question from whether to sell, and you don't have to sell your business to be a serious entrepreneur. It's also bigger than when to make your first hire, which asks whether one slice of work exists outside your head. This one asks whether you're willing to spend the years it takes to put the rest of the business into someone else's.

Putting it to work

Run it as an apprenticeship, one area at a time.

Name the person. A successor you haven't identified can't be mentored. If there's nobody obvious, that's your first decision, and it's worth making before you write any job ad.
Pick one area of judgment to hand over first. Quoting, scheduling, which clients get a yes. Start with the one that interrupts you most.
Let them shadow, then let them decide while you review. A few weeks of watching you make the call and hearing why. Then they make it and you look afterwards. Talk through every call where you'd have gone the other way, while it's still fresh and cheap.
Build the feedback in and mark the milestones. A standing weekly conversation does far more than an occasional correction. When they own an area completely, say so out loud to the team. People care about what gets celebrated.
Write down what the disagreements teach you. You don't have to document the whole business first. The places where you and your successor disagree are exactly where your judgment lives, and those are the notes worth keeping.

A four-person accounting practice and a $9M mechanical contractor run this the same way. The timeline and the notes come out completely different, which is the point.

Sources

Over $2 trillion in business assets are at stake as majority of small business owners plan to exit their business over the next decade, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, January 10, 2023. 76% plan to exit within a decade; 9% have a formal succession plan; 54% name finding a buyer or successor as the top obstacle; 39% say the business is too reliant on them day to day.
Skilled Trades and Entrepreneurship: The Need for Business Competencies, Diversity Institute for the Future Skills Centre, 2025. The business-competency gap among self-employed tradespeople, and 2021 self-employment rates.
Delta Pipeline, Inc., Project Equity ownership story, July 2020. Internal training, the path from helper to project engineer, and Craig Danley on transferring a leadership mindset.
ESOP Case Study: Sundt Construction Company, Jessica Thomas, National Center for Employee Ownership, 2012. The five-part written succession requirement.
Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, 1995. The explicit and tacit knowledge distinction.

Frequently asked

Do I have to write everything down before I can hand the business over?

No. How much needs writing down depends on how established the business is. A small firm can often hand over most of its judgment through mentoring and conversation. A larger one needs more of it on paper, because no single relationship can carry it all. Either way, the mentoring is the part you can't skip.

How long does it take to mentor a successor?

It depends on who you hire and how built your business is. Someone from your own industry moves fastest. A recent graduate takes longer, because you're teaching the craft and the business. A seasoned hire can be quick or slow depending on how attached they are to the way their last company did things.

Can a business partner be the successor?

Yes. Building the business alongside a partner from early on is a legitimate way to get to the same place, and in some ways an easier one, because the judgment gets formed together rather than handed across later. The mentoring still has to happen, in both directions.

Does this mean I should be planning to sell?

No. The same work makes the business sellable and makes it possible to stay and step back, and you get to choose once someone else can actually run it. Doing it only to sell tends to produce a tidy manual and an unprepared successor.

Ready to look at the architecture honestly?

If you've interviewed for this person more than once and none of them were good enough, the candidates were probably fine. What was missing is the apprenticeship. Book the conversation and we'll tell you what we see: which of the four frameworks is holding you in the middle of everything, and whether the work we do fits where you are. Have a look at how we work first if you'd rather read than talk.

Book the conversation →