The default assumption is that bigger means more capable. A team beats a person, an agency beats a freelancer, a department beats a desk. For a great deal of work, the opposite is true, and the reason is simple: every seam between people is a place where things go wrong.
Brief to strategist, strategist to designer, designer to developer. Each handoff loses context, adds delay, and dilutes accountability. The person who decides is not the person who builds, and the person who builds is not the person who answers for the result. By the end, nobody fully owns the outcome, and the work is the average of everyone's partial understanding.
When the same person reads the numbers, builds the fix and runs it, nothing is lost in translation, because there is no translation. The judgement and the execution live in one head. Decisions get made by the person who will have to live with them, which is the only arrangement that reliably produces good ones.
A single capable operator can now do what used to require a team, because the cost of building collapsed. Leverage that once needed headcount now needs judgement. The constraint moved from how many hands you can afford to how good the one set of hands is.
At genuine scale, of course. Some things are simply too big for one person. But most businesses are nowhere near that line and reach for headcount long before they need it, paying for coordination instead of outcomes, and adding the very handoffs that slow them down.
Leverage is not the size of the team. It is how little is lost between deciding and doing. Often the highest-leverage arrangement is the smallest one.
No account managers, no handoffs. You talk to the operator.