Most consultants tell
you what to do.
I do it with you.

Both — and the ratio shifts by sprint phase. In the first two weeks it's heavy on diagnosis: I'm in your pipeline, listening to calls, reviewing sequences, talking to your reps. By weeks four through eight it's active build — playbooks, qualification frameworks, outbound structure. The back end is coaching and reinforcement. I don't send you decks. I'm in your Slack, in your deals, in your team reviews. The 6–8 hours is a floor, not a ceiling.

Directly with the team — with your context and buy-in. Founders can be a bottleneck by nature. If every coaching moment has to route through you, the change doesn't stick. I'll align with you on direction and priorities, but I'll work with your AEs and SDRs in real sessions. You'll know what's happening and why. You won't need to be the messenger. And that gives you some weekly hours back.

They can run in parallel — and the sequencing actually matters here. The number one reason early-stage VP of Sales hires fail is that the founder hasn't defined what success looks like before the hire. We spend the first 12 weeks building exactly that foundation: the playbook, the ICP clarity, the pipeline benchmarks. When a great Head of Sales walks in on week 13, they have something to lead, not a blank slate to build alone. I've helped several founders make better hiring decisions specifically because we did this work first.

Fast. There's no month-long discovery phase. Week one is pipeline audit, call review, and a working session with you to align on the single biggest revenue blocker. By the end of week two you'll have a prioritised diagnosis and we'll have started work on the first fix — whether that's outbound sequencing, qualification, or positioning. The 12 weeks are structured but the first sprint starts immediately.

Week 12 ends with a documented playbook your team owns, measurable benchmarks set, and a clear picture of what comes next. Some founders renew for a second sprint at a different focus area. Some bring on a Head of Sales and I do a 30-day handoff. Some are ready to run independently. The goal is never dependency — it's that by week 12 you should have enough to run a repeatable motion.

Engagements are structured as a 12-week sprint. Investment is in line with 1–2 months of a full-time sales hire — a fraction of the risk. Exact pricing is shared after the diagnostic call, because the scope varies — a founder with 2 SDRs and no playbook needs different work than one with a full team and a broken conversion rate. What I can tell you: it's structured to be measurably cheaper than a mis-hire and faster than a 6-month external hire process. If the diagnostic reveals I'm not the right fit, I'll tell you directly before any money changes hands.

Hiring a VP of Sales without a defined playbook is one of the most expensive mistakes I see at Series A. 70% of early-stage VP hires fail within 18 months — mostly because the founder handed them an undefined problem and a small team. Sometimes, you don't even have enough work that would keep a VP Sales busy. What I do in 12 weeks is build what a VP of Sales would spend their first six months building — except we do it together, faster, and without the equity or $250K OTE. You end up with a stronger foundation and a better brief for the hire. Both can coexist. The sequence just matters.

We agree on this at the start based on a diagnosis questionnaire, not the end. Before week one, we align on two or three leading indicators specific to your situation — could be outbound reply rate, demo-to-close conversion, pipeline coverage ratio, average deal velocity, hiring framework, etc. The sprint is structured around moving those numbers. I don't define success vaguely so it can't be held against me — that's exactly what advisors do. The whole model only works if there's something concrete we're aiming at.

There's a structured midpoint review at week six. We look at what's moved, what hasn't, and whether the original diagnosis was right. If the problem shifted or something new surfaced, we adjust the back half of the sprint. If I got something wrong in the early assessment, that's on me to fix — not yours to absorb. The 12 weeks is a commitment from both sides, which is exactly why I cap at three clients. I can't do mid-sprint corrections at scale.

The engagement is a 12-week sprint, but the commitment is earned, not assumed. At the end of week four we do a formal checkpoint — you've seen how I work, what the diagnosis surfaced, and what the next eight weeks are built around. If it doesn't feel right for any reason, you can exit cleanly with no further financial obligation for M2 and M3. No awkward conversations, no lock-in. I'd rather you leave at four weeks than stay twelve weeks unconvinced. Beyond that point, I ask for full commitment — because the work in weeks five through twelve is where the real build happens, and half-engagement on either side doesn't serve anyone.

The cap exists precisely because of this question. At four or five clients, the math breaks. You'd get an advisor, not an embedded partner. Three clients is the number where I can be genuinely in your business — in your pipeline, in your team's weekly rhythm, available when a deal needs real input. If I'm at capacity when you reach out, I'll tell you honestly and we can plan for the next sprint start rather than take you on under-resourced.

Yes. The async model is for the routine — updates, quick feedback on sequences, reviewing a proposal draft. It's not a buffer for when things matter. A closing deal is exactly the situation where I expect to be called, and I'll pick up and guide the best. Joining client calls is not part of the standard engagement, but it's not off the table either. If a deal needs it and we both agree it's the right move, it happens. What I won't do is become your closer — because that doesn't scale past me, and scaling past me is the whole point.