Dependency on Key Personnel in Rental: What Happens When Your Best Person Is Out?

When a specific person falls ill, nobody knows where each case stands. Cases stall, owners ask questions, applicants wait. Not because the team is bad – but because the knowledge lies in the head of a single person.

This is not due to a lack of teamwork. From practical experience we know: About 60 to 70% of process knowledge in property management is not documented – it lies in the minds of individual people.

Dependence on individuals is not an HR risk. It is a systemic risk.

Those who transfer knowledge into the system make their organization independent of individual absences.

Dependence on individuals in letting arises where processes remain implicit. In this article, we explain where the risks lie – and how you can systematically build cover capability.

What does dependence on individuals mean in letting?

Processes dependent on individuals are workflows in which knowledge, decisions, and communication do not reside in the system, but with individual people. It is not about competence – but about the question of whether the process works without a specific person.

Four signs of dependence on individuals in the letting process:

• Knowledge is not documented: Procedures, contacts, and decision paths exist only in the head.

• Decisions are not traceable: Why an applicant was selected cannot be read from the system.

• Communication runs through personal channels: WhatsApp, direct calls, personal email – without system access for others.

• No onboarding without "asking the person": New employees cannot start without asking the knowledge keeper.

Why does it fail in practice today?

Dependence on individuals does not arise intentionally. It is the result of processes that were never documented as a system.

60 to 70% of knowledge is undocumented

From practical experience we know: 60 to 70% of process knowledge in property management is not in the system – it lies in the heads of individual employees. This is not a failure of individuals – it is a structural deficit.

Decisions are not traceable

Those who select an applicant often do so based on experience and gut feeling. If this person is absent, not only is the decision missing – but also the logic behind it.

Communication bypasses systems

Personal channels are faster than system routes. This is understandable – but it means that information lies with only one person. No colleague has access, no system saves the context.

No onboarding without knowledge keepers

New employees take weeks to become productive – not because the tasks are complex, but because the knowledge is not accessible.

How the lack of controllability plays a role in this is explained in our article Why chaos arises despite processes.

What it costs – effects and ROI

Risks of high dependence on individuals

Absence risk: From the practice of typical management companies, we know: One week of unplanned absence of a key person reduces team capacity by 20 to 40% – because cases stall and no one has an overview.

Staff turnover costs: Employee departures cause significant costs – due to recruitment effort, training time, and loss of knowledge. These costs are not systematically recorded in most management companies.

Training time: From the practice of typical management companies, it takes 3 to 6 months to reach full productivity. During this time, the team works with reduced capacity.

Loss of knowledge: With industry staff turnover estimated at 18 to 25% per year (industry estimate), a significant portion of implicit knowledge is lost annually – irretrievably if it is not documented.

Efficiency gains with reduced dependence on individuals

Experience from the practice of typical management companies:

• Complete cover capability achievable in less than one day of training

• Onboarding time significantly reduced when process steps are documented

• Absences no longer trigger escalations

• Team stability even in the event of personnel changes

Our Guide to optimizing the letting process provides the complete framework.

Practical example

An employee is absent for two weeks. 30 ongoing cases are on her desk. Nobody knows the processing status, communication with applicants and owners stalls, escalations accumulate.

The problem was not the absence – but the fact that knowledge, statuses, and communication resided exclusively with one person.

After introducing systematic process documentation – status visibility in the system, documented cover rules, structured handover protocols:

• Full cover capability in less than one day of training

• No case stalls during an absence

• Onboarding of new employees in days instead of weeks

• Owner communication runs independently of individual people

Document process steps and map them in the system

Make every step in the letting process explicit. Document not only what is being done, but also how decisions are made and what information is needed.

• Document each process step with decision logic

• Transfer contacts and communication channels into the system

• Create checklists for recurring steps

Make statuses for each case visible to everyone

Ensure that everyone in the team can see where every case stands at any time. Statuses must live in the system – not in the head.

• Introduce status definitions for each process step

• Set up a central dashboard or overview

• Update statuses regularly (mandatory, not optional)

Define, practice and test cover rules

Define a cover person for each process step. Test cover deliberately – not just in an emergency.

• Create a cover matrix for each process step

• Actively test the cover once a quarter

• Identify and close gaps

60 to 70% of process knowledge lies in the head – not in the system. Dependence on individuals is not a question of loyalty, but of system maturity.

Those who document today save weeks of training tomorrow and prevent escalations. Cover capability is not a luxury – it is an operational basic requirement.

How do you reduce dependence on individuals in property management?

Through three measures: document process steps and map them in the system, make statuses visible for each case, and define and regularly test cover rules. The key is to make implicit knowledge explicit.

What does cover capability mean in the letting process?

Cover capability means that every process step can be taken over by at least one other person – without cases stalling or knowledge being lost. This requires that knowledge lies in the system and statuses are visible.

How do you transfer implicit knowledge into the system?

Through structured documentation: record every process step with decision logic, required information, and communication channels. Create checklists for recurring steps. And define cover rules that are tested regularly.