title: "Hiring conversation — charlie-example for acme-example COO role" type: meeting slug: meetings/2026-04-17-hiring-charlie-example date: 2026-04-17 attendees: [you, alice-example, charlie-example]

Hiring OH — charlie-example for COO at acme-example

alice-example brought charlie-example by to discuss the COO role at acme-example. charlie-example previously ran ops at widget-co before leaving in late 2025.

Discussion

charlie-example is technically strong and has the right ops chops on paper. The concern I raised: he hasn't operated at the velocity acme-example is going to need over the next 18 months. widget-co's operating cadence was much slower than what alice-example runs.

charlie-example pushed back — argues he was operating under structural constraints at widget-co that don't exist at acme-example. Possible, but I've seen this pattern before. Founders adopt the operating cadence of their previous company more than they think.

alice-example wants to move forward. I think it's worth a 90-day trial period before committing to the full COO title. Conviction on the fit question is genuinely mixed for me, ~0.5.

Takes

I bet charlie-example doesn't survive 12 months in the COO role at acme-example's velocity. Moderate conviction, 0.6.
alice-example will hire him anyway despite my concern. Strong, 0.85.
I predict charlie-example's first 90 days will look strong before the velocity gap shows up around month 4. ~0.55.