The RPRS Reality Check: Why Hire Slow, Fire Fast is Quietly Costing You
“Hire slow, fire fast” sounds like wisdom. When followed too literally in today’s market, it might be the worst advice you’re following.
I’ve preached that adage for years, because on paper it makes sense: take your time in the decision-making process, cut out the weeds quickly, prevent decay from spreading. The theory is logical.
But if there’s one thing I’ve learned since engineering school, it’s that the world does not operate under theoretical conditions. Every model - RPRS included - is built on a set of assumptions with little room for variability. Change the assumptions, and the model doesn’t fail. It just needs to be applied differently. That’s the reality check this article is about.
So when we apply EOS’s RPRS (Right Person, Right Seat) rule to our businesses, it sounds simple in theory: do they reflect the core values, and do they GWC (Get It-Want It-Have the Capacity to Do It) the seat. But what do you do in a hiring market where the "perfect person" for the role doesn't seem to exist? We often set the bar of expectation so high and give little grace for what the market can deliver at the compensation we’ve budgeted. "Hire slow, fire fast" is easy to recite, but it can set you back months or years if your industry is moving at lightspeed and you’re sitting there waiting for a unicorn to show up.
At a certain point - when your recruiters are threatening to pull the plug because the talent pool is seemingly dry, when final-stage candidates are negotiating for 1.5x+ the budgeted compensation with enough cushion to keep job-hunting until something better comes along, when your industry is innovating so fast you have no choice but to keep up or fall out - striving for RPRS starts to feel damn near impossible.
Here’s the part I want to be clear about: RPRS isn’t the problem. I still believe in the model. What I don’t believe is that it has to mean an 80%+ fit to be effective. That belief - not the model itself - is what’s setting good operators back. The bar most of us were taught to hold RPRS to was built for a market that, frankly, doesn’t exist anymore in many industries. Recalibrating the bar isn’t abandoning the framework. It’s using it the way it was always meant to be used: as a living tool, not a static scorecard.
So what do we do in these situations? Here’s where I’d challenge you to reset your perspective:
Stop hiring for a person who doesn’t exist/isn’t available yet. Sometimes an organization hires someone for one season of growth and later realizes the next season requires a different leader. That's not failure. That's organizational evolution. Hire for the seat’s current, real needs - not a hypothetical 3-year version of the role that may never materialize.
70% fit hired now beats 90% fit, hired never. Businesses rarely operate under ideal conditions. Sometimes the right personnel decision isn’t the perfect one... it’s the one that minimizes risk and keeps the most opportunity intact for the organization. In trying times, aim for a 70% fit over an 80+%. Unicorns only exist in fairytales, and waiting for one is itself a decision - usually an expensive one.
Fire fast is expensive. Coach first. So often we allow our emotional reaction to a struggling employee convince us that termination is the only option. Before jumping straight to the fastest, most aggressive solution, look for the opportunity to coach and develop that person through radical candor. A real, blunt conversation about performance turns things around more often than we give it credit for. Show them what success looks like and paint the path to get there. If they’re open to feedback and committed to their growth, the investment pays for itself.
Here’s what “holding out for the right person” actually costs you:
Launch the search: 2–4 weeks (define seat, engage recruiter, source candidates)
Recruiting cycle: 45–90+ days (likely longer for niche executive talent)
Candidate notice period: 2–4 weeks
Ramp into EOS + company + industry: 90–180 days
Add it up, and a realistic business disruption window looks like:
Best case: 4–6 months before a replacement is creating meaningful traction
More realistic: 6–12 months before they are truly functioning in the role
And that assumes the next hire is actually the right fit.
So the next time someone tells you to hire slow and fire fast, ask them what “slow” is actually costing you in a market like this one. RPRS isn’t wrong. It’s just been misapplied - treated like a pass/fail test instead of the living framework it was designed to be. The operators winning right now aren’t the ones waiting for the perfect fit to walk through the door. They’re the ones who got comfortable making the right imperfect call, fast, and building the muscle to develop people instead of endlessly replacing them. That’s not lowering the bar. That’s finally understanding where the bar needs to be.
If you’re staring down an open seat right now and wondering whether you’re being too picky or not picky enough, that’s exactly the conversation I have with clients every week. Let’s talk through your seat, your market, and what a realistic RPRS bar actually looks like for your business
