A hiring plan is an org design decision spread over twelve months and a large financial commitment\nmade in small pieces. It deserves the scrutiny of both.
\nHeadcount is an input. Start from what the organization must be able to do that it currently cannot,\nthen work out what closes the gap — hiring, developing existing people, contracting, or not doing the\nwork.
\nThe shape follows from people:org-design; this is about sequencing and quantity over time, funded\nagainst finance:budgeting-and-forecasting on fully loaded cost rather than salary. Salary is\ntypically well under the true cost, and plans built on it are wrong by a wide and consistent margin.
Twelve hires in a year is not one number; it is twelve dated decisions with dependencies.
\nSome attrition is expected and healthy; the planning error is treating it as noise. Model it by\nsegment — teams, levels and tenure bands differ substantially — and plan backfill lead time from the\nresignation date, not the leaving date.
\nWatch regretted attrition specifically, and by manager. Aggregate attrition looks fine while one\nteam is bleeding people, and the aggregate is what gets reported.
\nPlan the base case, the growth case and the contraction case. Knowing in advance what you would stop\ndoing, and which commitments are hard to reverse, is what makes a downturn a decision rather than a\nscramble.
\nOffers, notice periods and some contractor arrangements are commitments before anyone starts. Know\nwhich parts of the plan can still be unwound and by when.
\n