Don’t expect handover to fix a hiring mismatch

Handover vs Training: Why We Keep Mixing Them Up

Working in Executive Support, the Pūmau Business Team sees this constantly. Someone leaves. Someone new starts. A “handover” is booked. Everyone assumes that equals full capability. It doesn’t!

How do we know this? We've been there done that. Thankfully we've developed a way to find our feet quick and we're confident decision makers, commercially savvy, so we get up and running quickly. However, for your new hire, that may not be the case.

Handover Is Continuity
A handover is about keeping the wheels turning. It covers:

  • What’s active
  • What’s urgent
  • Where things live
  • Who to contact
  • Which tools are used
It may include a quick walkthrough of your payables process or where things sit in Xero. But that is orientation, not education. 

A handover shows someone where to click. 
It does not teach them why it matters.

Training Is Capability

Training builds competence. It covers:

  • The full process flow
  • Decision-making expectations
  • Standards and compliance
  • Proper use of tools like Xero
  • Error handling and reporting impacts

Training develops judgement, not just task completion. 

Handover transfers information.
Training transfers skill and confidence.

Where Friction Creeps In
Friction happens when we expect handover to do the job of training.
It shows up when:
  • Software knowledge is assumed
  • Processes aren't viewed as common sense
  • Documentation is expected, rather than workflows and methodology
  • There is no structured onboarding plan
  • The business owner confuses the two


The new team member feels underprepared.

Trust dips.

This is not a people problem. It is an expectation problem.

The Smarter Approach
Be real about expectations. Separate handover from training. Plan both.
Be clear about required tool and methodology capability during recruitment and plan necessary training for it, if there's a gap. 

Mismatched Expectations

A handover between a Bookkeeper and another Bookkeeper is usually straightforward. The capability matches the role. Both understand the language, the compliance requirements and the software. Experience carries the transition.


A handover from an experienced Executive Assistant to a more junior Administrator is different. The role scope may look similar on paper, but the capability gap changes everything. What feels intuitive to the experienced EA often relies on judgement, context and business maturity that has been built over time.


When capability is mismatched, handover alone is not enough. Training and structured support become essential. 


Should the outgoing person be expected to fully train their replacement?

An outgoing person can absolutely contribute to a handover. They can document processes, explain current workflows, flag risks and provide context around relationships and priorities. That is reasonable and valuable. But expecting an outgoing person to close a capability gap is different.


We actually do not recommend outgoing train incoming. Why? Because things at some point should have a new lens, a new perspective. Doing things the way they've always been done is not recommended.


If the incoming person does not match the scope, experience or decision-making level of the role, that is not something a short transition period can fix. Training someone up to a higher level of judgement, commercial awareness or strategic thinking sits with management, not the departing person.


Leadership is responsible for role design and recruitment alignment. If a business replaces a senior with a more junior person, that is a structural shift. It requires a training plan, staged expectations and active management involvement.


A smooth handover depends less on how generous the outgoing person is, and more on whether the incoming capability matches the role.


When capability aligns, handover works.

When it does not, management must provide more robust onboarding and support.


Join us, we're straight talkers
Categories :