The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when You need to justify a new hire with workload data, cost and what happens if you do not hire.
- {{role_title}}
- {{approver}}
- {{team_today}}
- {{workload_data}}
- {{role_scope}}
- {{cost_figures}}
- {{impact_without_hire}}
- {{alternatives}}
- {{timing}}
Full prompt and why it works
Prompt
Write a request for a new {{role_title}} on my team, for {{approver}}. Approvers see many requests and have to choose between them, so the case should make the workload, the cost and the cost of not hiring easy to compare. Current team and what it covers: {{team_today}} Workload data (volumes, backlog, hours, trends, service levels): """ {{workload_data}} """ What the new person would do: {{role_scope}} Cost figures I have, such as the salary band and other costs: {{cost_figures}} What happens if we do not hire: {{impact_without_hire}} Alternatives I have considered: {{alternatives}} When I need the person to start, and why: {{timing}} Use these headings: 1. The request: one or two sentences with the role, level and start date. 2. Why now: the workload evidence, with numbers and trends from my data. Show any calculation on one line, for example "180 tickets a week ÷ 45 per person = 4 people; we have 3." 3. What the role will do: three to five responsibilities, and what will improve as a result, with how it will be measured. 4. Cost: the total yearly cost from my figures, shown line by line. 5. If we don't hire: the specific consequences, with numbers where I have them. 6. Alternatives considered: each one (such as a contractor, automation, moving work to another team, or stopping some work) with why it falls short or what it would cover. 7. The ask: what I need approved, and by when. Keep it to one page, under 500 words. It should read as objective: a careful approver should find the numbers checkable and the alternatives taken seriously. Use only my figures. Do not invent salaries, benefit percentages, productivity gains or hiring timelines. If a cost that usually comes with a hire is missing, such as benefits, equipment or recruiting fees, list it as "[to confirm with finance]" rather than estimating it. Do not overstate the consequences; if the data shows only a modest gap, say so and make the case on what it does show. If my data does not support the hire, tell me plainly before the draft and suggest what to measure first.
Variables
- {{role_title}}
- The role you want to hire, with level if known, for example "senior support specialist".
- {{approver}}
- Who approves it, for example "my director and the finance partner".
- {{team_today}}
- Who is on the team now and what they cover, in a sentence or two.
- {{workload_data}}
- Numbers that show the load: volumes, backlog, overtime, response times, trends over recent months.
- {{role_scope}}
- The main work the new person would take on.
- {{cost_figures}}
- The salary band and any other costs you know. Write "ask finance" if you have none.
- {{impact_without_hire}}
- What slips, breaks or costs more if the role is not filled.
- {{alternatives}}
- Other options you looked at, such as a contractor or automation, and what you found.
- {{timing}}
- The start date you need and the reason, for example a seasonal peak or a launch.
Why it works
- Who it's for. Approvers compare many requests, so the case is built to be compared: workload, cost and the cost of not hiring, each in its own section.
- What to avoid. No invented salaries or productivity gains, and no overstated consequences, because one number that does not check out sinks the whole request.
- If unsure. Missing costs are marked for finance, and if your data does not support the hire you are told before the draft, not after the rejection.