Hi Greg,
Thanks for this detailed and well thought through proposal.
I am in agreement with your thinking and like the way it solidifies the requirement needed to transition from contributor to one of the “core team” (with vesting tokens). In short, by filling a high-leverage role.
I flag this point, as compensation based on experience is different to that based on capability. Your comments on relentlessly resourceful allude to this point. Would Index Coop pay someone with two decades of experience differently to someone with five years, even if they were expected to perform equally well in role?
Similarly, will the hiring process be set up to focus on experience or capability / skill / potential growth? The decision on how weight IC places on experience may have massive significance on the overall outcomes of a recruitment process.
Do any of the hiring team have experience doing these types of interviewing? It is pretty tricky to get right but, if done correctly, is supposed to be very effective.
In favor of this, keen to hear some thoughts on length of trial - in my head 3 months seems sensible for virtually all roles.
This statement is too strong given how broad our guiding principles. Pretty sure I won’t have stayed 100% true to guiding principle during my time with the Coop. Maybe soften this a little?
Agreed. Presumably this is a commitment to have much more specific criteria for success than IIP-36 (KPIs were all: “# Holders & # Unit Supply”)
Maybe outside the scope of this post, but some mention of what ongoing salary adjustment will look like could be worth including (for example: “We will hold yearly performance review meetings to agree changes to base salary)”.
On the whole excellent post. I look forward to seeing the next iteration and finding out which new roles will be coming through the process.