Good question. These are two different things though.
The 90 days is training. We assign a buddy who’s responsible for the trial, daily structured meetings first two weeks then weekly, systematic PM feedback every few days. Nobody gets thrown in alone. We teach company processes, codebase, standards, how we work.
But we’re also evaluating during that training. How fast do they absorb? Do their questions get sharper over time? Does feedback translate into behavior change? That trajectory in 90 days predicts the next 3 years better than any interview.
After the trial passes, that’s when development planning starts. Different conversation entirely.
Companies that give 2-3 years without structured evaluation aren’t training longer. They’re just delaying the decision they could have made in 90 days.
Interesting post. Thanks a lot.
I agree from the employer side that you want to minimize risk.
But it seems to me 1 step is missing: training.
All companies I worked with gave engineers 2-3 years, so engineers can have time to adapt and learn.
Is that your 2-3 months too short?
Good question. These are two different things though.
The 90 days is training. We assign a buddy who’s responsible for the trial, daily structured meetings first two weeks then weekly, systematic PM feedback every few days. Nobody gets thrown in alone. We teach company processes, codebase, standards, how we work.
But we’re also evaluating during that training. How fast do they absorb? Do their questions get sharper over time? Does feedback translate into behavior change? That trajectory in 90 days predicts the next 3 years better than any interview.
After the trial passes, that’s when development planning starts. Different conversation entirely.
Companies that give 2-3 years without structured evaluation aren’t training longer. They’re just delaying the decision they could have made in 90 days.