To continue me earlier post on seniority and staff.
First explanations: When a company decides to hire someone there is usually a pretty easy P v. L(Profit versus Loss) number.  New hire salary (minus) money new hire brings in (equals) profit or loss.  If the new hire will bring in more money then his salary… hire them.  In a church you can’t quantify all hires by giving going up, many will have absolutely no net affect on giving. I think I can safely say no one is giving more money to the church because I was brought on.  

This means in the church world (again we are not exception) if there is no need, there is no hire.
Case in point I think our IT guy has been on… less then a year.  When the staff is only 25 people a full time IT guy is prolly a waste.   On a growing staff of 100, 1 full time IT guy is GROSSLY overworked. Especially, when you take in to account all that was done IT wise in the 14 years before he was brought on that he would have no knowledge of.  His learning curve had to have been more like a learning cliff…and for most of the hires moving forward that is how it will be.

This leads to the results… the obvious one is stated above.  Though the staff is 100 people big, in many places like many churches, we are understaffed.  One of the other results is places that are understaffed, those people have to be as good as if they were properly staffed.  That means if there is an understaffed area somewhere the people holding down those forts are REALLY good (again we are no exception) If fact I could regale you with tales of about 1/2 the staff explaining how each one is uniquely gifted in their area of expertise.   Unfortunately I have already made this post entirely too long