Great Interview. Bad Hire.
A short overview of the 29-page playbook: interviews, paid real work, and a decision both sides can make.
You can make a thoughtful hiring decision and still get it wrong. Interviews help you check experience and judge fit. Real work gives you evidence the conversation can't. Keep the numbers below in their proper context:
My March 3, 2026 report analyzed 273 companies using records from 2023–2026. The 12–26% estimate describes individual reps with more than a year at their current company, a historical internal tenure snapshot, not a representative industry survey or a survival rate. The 85% churn figure (Zach's internal PipelineOS pipeline analysis from around 2024; a rerun is pending. It is neither an industry census nor a causal finding.) is separate. The dollar figures are a worked illustration, not observed averages from the report.
Structured interviews and unstructured chats are not the same thing. Sackett and colleagues' discussion of their research identifies structured interviews as useful predictors. It does not say interviews are useless, or that a multiweek trial is the same as a work-sample test.
Ask concrete questions, compare the answers with available evidence, and pay attention to your intuition. Use that judgment to decide who is worth trying to work with. A good interview isn't proof, and a trial doesn't remove every uncertainty.
A trial hire is a bounded period of real work for real compensation. Both sides evaluate the fit. Agree on representative opportunities, support, compensation, and a review point before starting. It's a paid, mutual audition, not free work while you make up your mind.
Around two weeks, be clear on what you know and what is missing. Continue, stop, or agree on a bounded paid extension for specific missing evidence. If the company hasn't supplied a fair test, you can't fairly evaluate the rep yet. A few weeks on a calendar doesn't guarantee enough calls for a meaningful close-rate comparison.
The key insight: 80-85% of reps churn within six months in my historical pipeline figure. Zach's internal PipelineOS pipeline analysis from around 2024; a rerun is pending. It is neither an industry census nor a causal finding. That doesn't establish commission-only as the cause. I want trials to be paid and workable for both sides. Fair pay addresses one concern; it doesn't prove commitment or guarantee retention.
Ask what compensation would make the trial workable for both sides
Agree on the work, support, and review point before starting
Use the conversation to reach a fair agreement, not find the lowest number they will tolerate
A strong candidate can still decline a trial. That is not a character test
Check whether the trial fits the person's existing commitments rather than assuming they are free
Budget the trial around the work, the rep's time, and what you can afford to learn. Trial pay is a real cost. It doesn't become negligible because a hypothetical revenue gap is large.
Illustration: 100 shown calls at an $8,000 offer produce $200,000 in sales value at a 25% close rate and $80,000 at 10%. The gap is $120,000. At $250 per booked call and a 25% no-show rate, both scenarios use about $33,333 in ad spend. Don't add that spend again as an incremental loss. These figures aren't profit, guaranteed collections, or a promise that a trial will produce the better result.
The full 29-page playbook discusses:
An illustrative revenue comparison at two close rates
What interviews can and can't tell you
Step-by-step instructions for running a trial hire
The legal stuff — 1099 vs W-2, the "trial period" trap, and compliant structures
How to price trial compensation (and why you let the rep name their number)
Making a trial workable for both sides
How to transition from traditional hiring to trial-based
The Trial Hire Toolkit — templates, scorecards, and checklists
29 pages. No email required. No strings attached.