A credible hiring plan names roles, sequence, cost, and the metrics each hire is accountable.
Every deck has a hiring plan slide. Most are wish lists that fall apart under a single diligence question. A credible plan names roles, sequence, cost, and the metric each hire is accountable for moving.
Does the plan tie to the milestones the next round requires? Does the pay math sum to the budget in the model? Are the first 3-5 hires named or actively in flight? Is there a plausible source for each — recruiter, network, alumni pool?
First hires solve the biggest bottleneck. If revenue is the bottleneck, hire sales and marketing before engineering. If product-market fit is the bottleneck, hire product and engineering before sales. Sequence signals prioritization judgment.
Base salary + benefits load (typically 25-30%) + equity grant. Total loaded cost per role, summed against the model. Off-market comp (either way) will surface — either you underpay and lose candidates, or you overpay and blow the budget.
Typical option pool at Series A: 10-15% of post-money. Enough for 18-24 months of hires at market equity grants. Refresh grants for existing employees at Series B — often forgotten in the plan, always noticed in diligence.
Every senior hire should have a named metric they own. VP Sales: net new ARR. VP Product: activation or retention. VP Engineering: velocity or reliability. Vague accountability signals founders haven't thought through what the hire is for.
Hiring plan doesn't tie to the model. Too many senior hires too fast (adds coordination cost before revenue supports it). VP hires before individual contributors exist to manage. Sales leaders hired before repeatable playbook exists.
Investor directory · Fundraising library · Articles A–Z · Company funding database