Key Takeaways

  • Hiring one sales rep often leaves you guessing about their performance: “Is it good? Is it not good? I don't know.” Back A Link Whist, Head of Sales at Clay, found this ambiguity slowed down scaling.
  • Clay, a company that scaled its sales organization to $100 million in ARR, tackled this by intentionally hiring two sales candidates simultaneously for the same role.
  • Observing two people side-by-side provides a built-in benchmark, making it "pretty clear" who the better fit and performer is, as Whist noted.
  • This direct comparison strips away much of the uncertainty in early sales hires, accelerating your ability to build a high-performing team.
  • The core of this strategy is laid out in The 'Hire Two at a Time' Sales Hiring Method.

The 'Hire Two at a Time' Sales Hiring Method

Type: method

Name: The 'Hire Two at a Time' Sales Hiring Method

Components:

  • Step 1: Simultaneous Hiring: When expanding your sales team, aim to hire two candidates for the same role at the same time.
  • Step 2: Direct Comparison: Observe and compare the performance, capabilities, and cultural fit of both hires directly against each other.
  • Step 3: Clearer Evaluation: The comparative context makes it 'pretty clear' who is performing better and is a more suitable long-term hire, eliminating the ambiguity of evaluating a single individual in isolation.

When This Works (and When It Doesn't)

Whist's insight from Clay, a company scaling its sales organization to $100 million ARR, highlights how effective this method is when certainty is paramount for high-growth. For a team needing to rapidly identify and onboard top talent, the built-in comparison cuts through the typical "is this person actually good?" dilemma. It's particularly useful for repeatable roles where you need multiple hires, like SDRs or junior AEs, and where a steady stream of candidates is available. This method reduces the costly mistake of holding onto a mediocre hire for too long simply because you lack a clear performance baseline.

However, the 'Hire Two at a Time' method isn't a silver bullet. If your startup is small, with a limited hiring budget and only one critical role to fill, the cost of bringing on two salaries and two onboarding processes might be prohibitive. It also assumes a healthy candidate pipeline; if you struggle to find even one good applicant, this strategy becomes impractical. For highly specialized or senior roles, where the talent pool is exceptionally shallow and each hire is unique, a direct comparison might be less relevant than a deep assessment of individual expertise and track record. Founders should consider their financial runway, the availability of talent, and the specific needs of the role before doubling down on this approach.

What to Do With This

You're a Series A founder with a SaaS product hitting strong traction, aiming for your first $5 million ARR. Your current sales team is two reps, but you need to add three more to scale. Instead of hiring one by one, apply Whist's 'Hire Two at a Time' method for your next two hires.

Step 1: Simultaneous Hiring. Open a single job requisition for an Account Executive, but plan to bring in your top two candidates concurrently for an initial 90-day probationary period. Structure their onboarding, training, and initial sales tasks identically.

Step 2: Direct Comparison. Throughout those 90 days, closely track their KPIs: discovery calls booked, demos given, pipeline generated, and win rates. Observe their coachability, communication, and how they integrate with the existing team. Don't just look at absolute numbers, but how they respond to feedback and challenges relative to each other.

Step 3: Clearer Evaluation. At the end of the period, you'll likely have a stark contrast. One rep might be hitting 80% of quota with high-quality pipeline, while the other struggles at 40% and needs constant hand-holding. This direct side-by-side performance data, as Whist noted, makes the decision "pretty clear" on who to retain long-term, and who to let go, saving you months of ambiguity and lost revenue.