>there is a huge class of bad hire that starts strong and decays rapidly.
Exactly. Also, startups = growth. As you grow, the game changes and usually gets harder. Someone you hired to take you from 0 to X^10 customers may do an ok job in the first 4 months when you have to go from 0 to X customers but may be terrible at getting you from X to X^2 in the next 4 months.
>Don't be a jerk and cut people off just before their cliff.
Saying that it sometimes takes more than 6 months to really evaluate new hires in specific roles is not the same as saying let's cut people off just before the cliff.
>Do the right thing and reduce the cliff
It is not clear at all that reducing the cliff to 6 months is "the right thing".
Comments
>there is a huge class of bad hire that starts strong and decays rapidly.
Exactly. Also, startups = growth. As you grow, the game changes and usually gets harder. Someone you hired to take you from 0 to X^10 customers may do an ok job in the first 4 months when you have to go from 0 to X customers but may be terrible at getting you from X to X^2 in the next 4 months.
That is laughable. Few, very few companies experience that kind of exponential growth.
Don't be a jerk and cut people off just before their cliff. Do the right thing and reduce the cliff.
>Don't be a jerk and cut people off just before their cliff.
Saying that it sometimes takes more than 6 months to really evaluate new hires in specific roles is not the same as saying let's cut people off just before the cliff.
>Do the right thing and reduce the cliff
It is not clear at all that reducing the cliff to 6 months is "the right thing".
Deliberately firing people on the eve of their cliff is immoral. But the solution isn't to reduce the cliff.