That makes no sense because, presumably, the alternative is to have no-one. If you don't hire someone because you are worried about the team, you don't need to hire anyone (this risk is, also, not avoidable anyway...if your product is so fragile, the risk isn't making a hiring mistake).
But similarly, quickly coming to the conclusion to not hire is just as fallacious.
If someone burns out as a result of the bungled planning, then the project can potentially be doomed without hiring (or even doomed anyway) - one should almost immediately reevaluate when one comes into this situation unless there was some sort of agreement beforehand.
The intellectual justification is probably something like:
Hiring someone always represents a risk. You don't know if the person is going to succeed at the job you hired them for. You don't know if they're going to wind up a positive asset to the company. You need the option of firing them, and the possibility that you might wind up in a legal battle because you did so -- that even if you have an airtight case, you'll have to lawyer up and spend time in a court room -- is scary and could therefore have a chilling effect on hiring in the first place.
Actually, as soon as you've decided not to hire someone, it actually makes sense to shift the whole conversation to "selling the product" and otherwise making it likely the person, who takes a job elsewhere, will either refer other (hopefully better) candidates, or use your product.
reply