/en/blog · writing
Why a fixed in-house payroll often pays for idle time, and a results-based payment model provides manageability, elasticity, and speed without unnecessary expenses.
Dear CEO / CTO,
you don't have a hiring problem.
You have a payroll problem.
You're paying:
And the most expensive thing - you're paying for idle time.
The team is there. Salaries are being paid. But there are no results.
The classic in-house model:
Simply put:
you take all the risks upon yourself.
Now, a question.
Why aren't you paying for results?
There's another model:
an external scope-sensitive team.
What does this mean:
The difference is simple:
In-house → “we'll try” External team → “we are responsible for the results”
The most unpleasant part:
most companies already understand that their payroll is inefficient.
But they continue to defend it.
Because:
“it's more familiar” “it's safer” “everyone does it this way”
Spoiler:
it's not safer.
It's just more expensive and slower.
If tomorrow you need to cut costs by 30% without losing speed -
you won't be able to do it with an in-house team.
But you can with a results-based payment model.
The question isn't whether you need an in-house team.
The question is different:
what part of your payroll is actually idle time?