Make Your First Hire

Proof required

Share a written role definition document covering: (1) the function this person will own, described specifically enough that a stranger could evaluate whether a candidate fits; (2) why this function and not a different first hire — what bottleneck does this solve; (3) the 90-day success criteria — 3 specific outputs this person will be responsible for delivering in the first 90 days.

What gets checked

• Function is described specifically — a single sentence that a stranger could evaluate candidates against.
• Bottleneck justification is present — not 'we need help' but 'the bottleneck to our next milestone is [specific function], and adding this person removes it'.
• 90-day success criteria are output-based, not behaviour-based — 'close 3 pilots by day 60' is an output; 'show initiative and learn quickly' is behaviour.

Common mistakes

• Role definition is too broad: 'Head of Everything' or 'Growth Lead' with no specific function — this hire will fail because neither party knows what success looks like.
• Bottleneck justification is absent: 'we're just too busy' is not a bottleneck analysis.
• 90-day criteria are behavioural, not output-based — early hires need output-based accountability from day one.

Resources

Arena

What a verifier looks for

• The function must be specific — ask 'what would this person do on a Tuesday afternoon?' A vague answer means the role is not well-defined.
• The bottleneck justification should name what the business cannot do (or cannot do well) without this person — probe: 'What fails if you don't make this hire in the next 30 days?'
• The 90-day criteria should be evaluable — ask 'if the hire doesn't achieve these outputs by day 90, what would you do?' A clear answer means the criteria are real.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share your hiring tracker showing: total candidates sourced, interview stages, and the final shortlist (pseudonymised names acceptable). Share your structured interview question list — the questions you asked every candidate in your first-round interviews. Share a brief description of reference checks: who you spoke to (role and relationship to the candidate, not name), what you asked, and what surprised you.

What gets checked

• At least 10 candidates sourced — making the first hire from a pool of fewer than 5 candidates skips the comparative step that most clearly reveals what 'good' looks like.
• Structured interview questions are consistent — the same core set used with every first-round candidate.
• Reference check is substantive — at least one reference call where you asked a specific question about the candidate's weaknesses or a specific difficult situation they handled.

Common mistakes

• Fewer than 10 candidates sourced — the first hire comparison set should be real; a pool of 3 does not give enough signal.
• Interviews were unstructured: 'we just had a conversation' — unstructured interviews at this stage produce inconsistent evaluation.
• No reference checks — reference checks before the first hire are not optional; they are the most cost-effective due diligence available.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The structured interview question list must be consistent — it should be recognisably the same set across candidates, not a unique conversation each time.
• The reference check description must include at least one question about a difficult situation or a weakness — a reference check where you only asked 'was this person great?' is not a reference check.
• Fewer than 10 candidates sourced is a yellow flag — ask how candidates were found and why the pool was small.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share a brief 30-day review document (not a performance review — a working document) covering: (1) whether the first hire is on track to deliver the M1 90-day outputs (yes/no + reason); (2) one thing that is going better than expected and one thing that is not going as expected; (3) one thing you wish you had told the hire on day 1 that you didn't. If 90 days have elapsed, share the 90-day outcome assessment: which outputs were achieved, which were not, and what you learned.

What gets checked

• 30-day review is candid — at least one thing that is not going as expected, described specifically.
• The thing you wish you had said on day 1 is specific — not 'communicate more clearly' but 'I wish I had told them that the most important output in the first month was the customer list, not the product spec'.
• If 90 days have elapsed: outputs are assessed against the M1 criteria, not against a revised target.

Common mistakes

• 30-day review is entirely positive — at 30 days in a new role with a new company, there is always at least one misalignment worth naming.
• The thing not going as expected is attributed entirely to the hire rather than the context: 'they're not performing' without examining whether the role definition or onboarding contributed.
• 90-day outputs were revised during the 90 days without documentation — the credibility of the outcome assessment depends on the outputs being fixed before day 1.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The 30-day review must be candid — a document that only has positives is not a real 30-day review.
• The thing not going as expected should be attributed partly to the context (onboarding, clarity of role, tools) and not only to the hire — first hires at startups often fail because the founder did not onboard them well.
• If 90 days have elapsed: the output assessment must use the M1 criteria as the baseline — ask to see M1's 90-day criteria alongside the M3 outcome document.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.