| > One of them reads so slowly/poorly that she can't keep up with her emails at all, frequently misses important information and makes really egregious spelling errors. Is this a language barrier thing or something deeper. Have you guys looked into added some language tools in they workflow ? For example grammar and spelling errors should easily addressed with the right software tools. > This would maybe be ok in some roles, but her role is operational and fielding emails is a central part of it. How/why did they get hire in that position ? > If the product is good/needed enough, is it possible for this kind of company to succeed? Yes, it's just harder. > I know HN and PG essay-readers will usually be biased towards thinking the early team will make or break (I also have this bias), but I'm genuinely interested in hearing any views and experiences. HHN and PG have a different venture point then you. They have to answer what are the reasonable predictor of a unicorn. In which case execution speed is paramount. Not all startup work this way. You have a different question, what are chance for a reasonable exit with the current condition. Just track the progress and metric and make the decision if the company is worth your time. > slow things down and make a lot of unnecessary work for the other two (one of the other two being me) I think this is the core of the issue. If they relative unprodictivity become a problem for the rest of the team, then that's not good. Why are you stay there ? It's not your job to fix the company... The other thing to also think of is why exactly your company is attracting the caliber of people they are attracting ? Is it possible that the comp package is too low ? Or maybe the product is not compelling enough to attract people with more work opportunity. |
The cofounders knew this person and so it was an easy, friction-free hire when they really needed someone.
Thanks for the feedback and point about the difference between my and HN/PG's interests, it makes sense.