You don't sound very experienced. I mean that factually, not as an insult. For what it's worth, I've been in "key" roles (lead engineering, founder, and m-team) since 1996; I've spent my whole career in startups. I am not making the horror stories up, and they've happened in places with extremely good "lawyering".
Comments
You don't sound very experienced. I mean that factually, not as an insult. For what it's worth, I've been in "key" roles (lead engineering, founder, and m-team) since 1996; I've spent my whole career in startups. I am not making the horror stories up, and they've happened in places with extremely good "lawyering".
There are always people with different experiences to learn from.
That said, 1 year cliff is an arbitrary period of time. 6 months is an arbitrary period as well.
Your statement about experience is fine. I have my own collection of experience.
In my experience, forcing a fit/retention decision about a new hire to be earlier is a good thing. I do this with a 6 month cliff.
When I look at the people I have had to fire, I always saw the handwriting on the wall by the 2nd-3rd month.
A 6-month cliff gives me and them a chance to correct the issue.
Yes I could do this review process with a 1-year cliff. The 6-month cliff makes sure the issue is addressed consistently early after a new hire joins.
So if after 6-months I know I want to keep the person, why not say it with a stock plan?
Conversely, if the goal is to reduce the number of outsiders with stock:
If going earlier than a year cliff is bad then, using your argument, going longer must be better.