I’ve been going back and forth on this and I genuinely don’t know if I’m optimizing or overthinking.
For the past year, I’ve been building out comprehensive onboarding templates for new subcontractors—documented SOP, brief templates, brand voice guides, QA checklists, everything. The idea was: give them the playbook, they execute, done. And honestly? It helped reduce turnaround time and caught a lot of common mistakes early.
But I’m noticing something else happening. The contractors who use the templates religiously sometimes deliver technically correct work that feels… hollow. Like they’re hitting every checkbox but missing the intent. Meanwhile, the contractors I’ve spent time having actual conversations with—where we talked through why certain briefs matter, how the client thinks, what the market actually wants—those people produce work that feels way more thoughtful.
So now I’m wondering: should I be spending less time on template perfection and more time on actual mentorship conversations? Or is that just me being inefficient because I like talking to people?
The other angle: scaling. If I’m spending an hour per contractor on real conversations, that doesn’t scale to 10 contractors. But if everything’s in templates and people just follow them, I lose the relationship depth.
I’ve got a few hypotheses:
- Templates work fine for ops-heavy roles but fail for creative roles
- Most contractors need both—the templates as a baseline, plus real conversations to understand context
- I’m just not good at writing templates and I’m using “it loses the human touch” as an excuse
Have any of you found a balance that actually works? Like, what’s the minimum documentation you’ve found gets you 80% of the way there, and where do you draw the line on when real conversation becomes necessary?
I think you’re onto something real here, but I’d flip the framing slightly. Templates aren’t instead of conversations—they’re the starting point for better conversations.
Here’s what I do: I have solid templates for the operational stuff (format, deliverables, timeline, payment terms). But then I have a 30-minute kickoff call where I literally don’t follow the template. We talk about the why—why this brief matters to this client, what the market dynamics are, where they should push back if they think something won’t work.
That 30-minute conversation where I’m actually listening tells me way more about whether someone will do good work than any SOP. But I couldn’t have that conversation without the templates freeing up my time elsewhere.
So maybe the answer isn’t “templates vs. conversations.” It’s “templates so I have time for the conversations that matter.”
One more thing: I actually have contractors review my templates and give feedback. Like, “Does this SOP make sense? Would you do it differently?” That conversation itself is valuable. It’s not top-down anymore—it’s collaborative. And people deliver better work when they feel like they had input on how to do it.
Let’s think about this from a scaling perspective, because I think there’s actually a solution that works.
Tier 1 Contractors (high-volume, ops roles): Heavy templates, light conversation. These people need clear guardrails, not mentorship. Monthly check-ins, not weekly coffee chats.
Tier 2 Contractors (strategic, creative roles): Light templates, robust conversation. These people need context and autonomy. Invest in understanding how they think.
Tier 3 Contractors (rare specialists): Basically no templates. Completely customized relationship. But you’re only doing this for like 1-2 people.
I’m guessing your issue is that you’re treating all contractors at the same tier when they actually need different approaches. What does your contractor breakdown look like? Are you heavy in ops, or is more of your work strategic?
Real talk: templates feel like a project, not a person. When an agency sends me a 50-page SOP and expects me to follow it exactly, I immediately feel micromanaged. But when an agency sends me a 5-page overview and then has a conversation like “here’s what matters, here’s where you should trust your judgment, here’s where you absolutely cannot deviate,” I want to do good work.
Maybe the sweet spot isn’t “templates vs. conversations”—it’s having templates for the constraints (what can’t change) and then real conversations about the creative space (what should change based on who you are).
Does that distinction matter for how you’re thinking about this?
I love this question because it’s actually about trust and autonomy, not efficiency.
Here’s what I’ve seen: contractors who feel like they’re executing a template do fine work. Contractors who feel like they’re part of a team where they understand the mission? They do amazing work. The second group also flags problems early, asks better questions, and actually wants to work with you long-term.
So templates are necessary—yes. But leading with templates means every relationship starts at “you execute.” If instead you led with conversation and then handed them templates, you’re starting at “you’re part of this.”
Maybe the question isn’t what to document. It’s when to document it.
Let me frame this with data because I think you can actually measure which approach works better.
Track this for your contractors:
- First-project rework rate (%) — high rework suggests they didn’t understand intent
- Questions asked during execution — more questions usually means less rework eventually
- Project 1 vs. Project 5 quality improvement (%) — high improvement means they learned from you
- Retention rate (% who stay after 3 projects) — probably your best proxy for satisfaction
If templates-only contractors show high rework rates and low retention, you have your answer. If they show low rework and fine retention, templates alone work fine.
I’m guessing you’ll find templates work best for routine work but fall apart for nuance. What are you actually measuring right now?
I’m still in the phase where I’m doing everything myself and need to start delegating, so this is super relevant.
Honest question: how much of the “hollow” feeling you mentioned is actually that they’re new and don’t get it yet? Like, is that something that improves naturally after project 3 or 4 once they’ve absorbed context? Or is it genuinely a signal that the template approach fundamentally won’t work?
I’m asking because I don’t have time to have deep conversations with everyone right now. I need to document. But I also don’t want to hire people who’ll eventually leave because they feel like robots.