The short answer: More preparation capacity will not necessarily release a partner who still reviews every file. Establish whether the queue is caused by incomplete work, repeated errors, missing reviewer capacity or decisions only the partner can make. Then assign the next hire a clear responsibility at the appropriate level. Measure the partner’s review time and repeated corrections alongside completed files. Final approvals and professional responsibilities must remain explicit.
The team has finished the files. The partner still has a weekend of work.
That is a different hiring problem from a production backlog. If the new person can prepare more work but nobody else can assess it, the review queue may simply become longer.
Before writing the next job description, ask which part of the work still comes back to you and why. A junior preparer, an experienced reviewer and a client manager solve different constraints.
Find out what is actually waiting for the partner
Take a representative group of files and record why each needed your attention. Separate a technical decision from a missing document, a repeated correction or an unclear handover. The distinction tells you whether to improve preparation, change the review process or hire at a more experienced level.
| What comes back | Likely issue to investigate | Useful first response |
|---|---|---|
| Missing schedules or explanations | Work is arriving before it is ready | Define the evidence needed before submission |
| The same corrections on several files | Feedback has not changed preparation | Teach the recurring issue and check the next file |
| Complete files waiting for a first review | Insufficient experienced review capacity | Assess an experienced accountant for that responsibility |
| Every routine query reaches the partner | Decision rights or escalation rules are unclear | Name the person who can resolve routine questions |
| Client context is known only by the partner | Knowledge and relationship ownership are concentrated | Record the context and plan a deliberate transfer |
Several causes may exist together. Hiring is more useful when the brief names the responsibility being transferred and the remaining decisions that stay with you.
Count the interruptions as well as the files
When I returned to hands-on delivery at Around Finance, I wrote about losing sight of the volume of the job after stepping back. The small interruptions between opening a file and closing it mattered, particularly when setting budgets and deciding what was reasonable to ask of people.
That is useful when assessing a review queue. Twenty minutes looking at a file may be only part of the cost. Add the search for supporting records, the clarification conversation and the time spent revisiting an issue after another answer arrives.
For a representative period, record review time and why the review stopped. Use the result to identify recurring friction. Do not infer the whole workload from the number of jobs marked complete.
Agree what “ready for review” means
A file submitted for review should tell the reviewer what has been completed, where the evidence sits and which matters remain open. The aim is to let the reviewer assess the work without first reconstructing it.
- The relevant schedules and reconciliations are present.
- Supporting records are linked or clearly referenced.
- Unusual movements and proposed treatments are explained.
- Open questions state the issue, evidence and decision required.
- The preparer has checked the work against the agreed instructions.
An unresolved matter does not make a file unusable. Hiding it, or sending it without context, makes review harder. Distinguish a specific judgement needing a decision from preparation that has simply not been finished.
For your first delegated workflow, our guide to choosing the work to hand over provides a wider readiness test.
Choose a hire who can own the missing responsibility
If you need help with recurring production, a preparation role may be right. If you need somebody to challenge that work, resolve routine review points and develop junior staff, assess candidates against those responsibilities. A title alone does not tell you how much review experience a person has.
If the partner also owns every client conversation, consider whether the role needs portfolio and relationship responsibility. That requires a different assessment from being technically capable on a file.
Our guide to capacity when local hiring is not working covers the broader choice between process changes, contractors, outsourcing and dedicated staffing. This decision is narrower: which review or client responsibility needs a capable owner?
Test the candidate’s review judgement
Use a fictional or appropriately sanitised file with a few deliberate issues. Ask the candidate to explain what they would return to the preparer, what they would investigate and what they would escalate.
A useful reviewer distinguishes an incomplete schedule from a technical judgement. They also explain a correction in a way the preparer can use on the next file. Assess that explanation, including whether the candidate is clear about what they do not yet know.
For a client-management role, add a discussion about an unresolved client request. Test how the candidate establishes the facts and defines the next action without promising an answer outside their authority.
Transfer responsibility in stages
Begin with a contained group of familiar files and an agreed reviewer. Compare the new person’s findings with your assessment, discuss differences and define the boundaries of their authority.
As the work becomes dependable, broaden the allocation. Be explicit about who reviews preparation, who resolves routine queries and which matters still require partner input. The person may take on more of the workflow without taking on the partner’s final approval responsibilities.
The 90-day onboarding plan can support that transition. Early review and feedback still need time in your diary; that is part of establishing the role.
Measure whether the partner’s workload changes
Use the same definitions before and after introducing the role. Track partner review time per comparable file, the age of the review queue, repeated corrections and interruptions requiring partner decisions. Allow for differences in file complexity and the initial training period.
Worked illustration, not an Around People result: Suppose a partner spends 45 minutes reviewing each of 20 comparable files. That is 15 hours. If an initial review by an experienced colleague reduces the partner’s final review to 25 minutes per file, the partner spends 8 hours 20 minutes, a difference of 6 hours 40 minutes.
The colleague’s review and training time must also be counted. The illustration shows a possible transfer of partner workload, not a saving in total labour cost or a promised outcome. If the partner still performs the same work after the new review stage, investigate the handover, authority and quality before adding more preparation capacity.
Start with the responsibility you need to hand over
Bring a few examples of the work that still returns to you. We can discuss whether the missing responsibility belongs with an accountant, senior accountant or client manager.
For Irish and UK practices and US firms, the role needs to fit your systems, working hours and review responsibilities.
Frequently asked questions
Will another bookkeeper reduce partner review time?
A bookkeeper may release preparation capacity. Partner review time falls only if the work arriving for review improves or an appropriate responsibility transfers to another capable person. Diagnose the queue before choosing the level.
Can an offshore accountant review junior staff’s work?
It can be part of an appropriately experienced person’s role. Assess actual review experience, local knowledge, communication and judgement, then agree supervision and decision rights. Location does not establish the person’s authority.
Does delegating review transfer final sign-off?
Do not assume it does. Define preparation, initial review, technical decisions and final approval separately. Keep the firm’s applicable professional and regulatory responsibilities explicit.
What should we measure first?
Record partner review time, why files return, repeated corrections and the age of the queue over a representative period. Those observations help distinguish preparation defects from missing reviewer capacity or unclear ownership.
