Every org that grows goes through 5 phases. 

Phase 1 - "Why should we even hire? Cant we increase productivity altogether and not hire? "
-  Yes if,
	- Its just for a short period of time. 
	- If its extension of existing work and not a new horizontal/vertical. Eg: if gotta build integration with 2 banks for a payment product instead of 1. No if its building the infra k8 layer in additional to the integration layer. 
-  Most of the times no. Increasing productivity is a function of process changes and upskilling. Process changes are typically maxed out by the time this question is asked. Upskilling is slow (and uncertain).


Phase 2 - "Shall we hire immediately , or hire in 3 months? Or hire in 6 months?"
- In a startup, the option almost always doesnt exist.
- In a large company, the budgeting has already come through beforehand. This becomes an academic question. 
- If at all this question is discussed (in those rare orgs where engg startegy exists), then
   - waiting longer typically gets better candidates. "better" is different measure for each org, but whatever it is -- almost always waiting leads to better candidates. 
   - but waiting almost always doesnt lead to better outcomes. 
   - make hay while the sun shines -- starting a project early and getting going on it is more valuable that waiting for the right candidate. a project that has lost momentum/losing momemtum is worse than starting with a slightly weaker candidate
   - only exception is where niche skill matters, and the new hire is a skill blackbox for the project. in such cases, wait as long as needed. the conundrum here is to know who is the right/better candidate, given their skills are a blackbox. but thats a question for a later day. 

Phase 3 - "Whom to hire ? Personality based composition or wait for team to figure it out ?"
- Every team has its composition. Successful teams comes in all shapes and form. There are teams where all members are introverts. There would be team with glue members + introverts+ go getters etc. There would be team where there is one tiger member and rest avg, but the team does great. 
- A golden formula is 3 good techies, one glue, 2 journeymen. (6 is my ideal team size). 
- Golden formula is a misnomer beacuse it doesnt work as frequently. But in my exp, its a good starting point. The team doesnt explode at the start with this. 
- Every team organically evolves. There is no factor that i found that can be used to predict the right composition beforehand. 
- Unfortunately, its a lottery. Dont try to control it. 

Phase 4 - "Order of hires -- Team by Team, or every team at once? "
- Should you hire for one team, set that up and then hire for the next team? Or should you hire all staff engg firsts (assume every team has 1). 
- In my exp, always team by team. Because it helps guide the next team. 
- This question is almost always a roadmap decision and more acamedic in nature -- cant be adhered to. If the roadmap demands else,so be it.
- From engg mgmt perspective, its better to get one team rolling before hiring for the next one. Setting up a team is lot more than just hiring. 

Phase 5 - "The nexy things is here - AI/New Tool/New Vendor/New Paradigm"
-  We have a new tool that radically decreases scope or work or increases productivity. 
-  Can we go to Phase 1? 

Date: 2026-02-27