The New Hire Ramp Without a Safety Net
A marketing-software company hires three new account executives into an existing team of five. The new hires get a 90-day ramp with a reduced quota (25%/50%/75% of full quota in months 1–3), then full quota in month 4. Historical data shows new reps reach full productivity around month 7, and 40% of hires who miss their month-4 quota leave within a year. The team's marketing generates leads, but the best reps source 60% of their own pipeline through outbound. New hires are given the same lead flow as veterans and no structured onboarding beyond a two-day product training. At month 3, all three new hires are below ramp quota, and one is talking about quitting. The sales manager owns both ramp design and marketing's lead-gen relationship.
1. Identify the design mismatches between the ramp plan and how the team actually sells.
Read the worked answer
Several mismatches:
- Ramp timeline vs. real productivity curve. Full quota hits in month 4, but productivity data says month 7. The plan sets new hires up to miss quota in months 4–6, and 40% of month-4 misses lead to attrition - the plan is manufacturing failure.
- Lead flow assumption. Veterans source 60% of pipeline via outbound, but new hires get only shared marketing leads and no outbound training. They are expected to hit quota using a channel that supplies only ~40% of a veteran's pipeline.
- Onboarding gap. Two days of product training does not build the skills (prospecting, discovery, objection handling) that the veterans' outbound success implies are essential.
- No safety net. A reduced ramp that still ends before productivity, combined with an attrition cliff at month 4, gives new hires no room to develop.
In short, the ramp assumes a marketing-led model while the team actually runs a hybrid outbound model, and it gives new hires neither the time nor the skills to close the gap.
2. Recommend a revised ramp and onboarding plan, and specify the manager's ask of marketing.
Read the worked answer
Revised ramp:
- Extend the reduced-quota period to align with the productivity curve - e.g., 25%/40%/55%/70%/85%/100% across months 1–6, with full quota in month 7.
- Add leading-indicator milestones (pipeline created, discovery calls, proposals) so new hires are measured on progress before revenue arrives.
- Build a safety net: a guaranteed minimum or draw during ramp so a slow start doesn't trigger the month-4 attrition cliff.
Onboarding:
- Structured 30/60/90 plan with a peer mentor (a top outbound rep) and weekly coaching.
- Outbound prospecting training and a starter account list, since 60% of veteran pipeline is self-sourced.
- Shadowing and call reviews in the first 30 days.
Ask of marketing:
- A defined lead SLA and volume commitment for new hires, plus a dedicated new-hire lead allocation for the first 90 days so they aren't competing with veterans for the same flow.
- Joint tracking of lead-to-opportunity conversion by tenure so the manager can see whether the channel or the rep is the constraint.
3. The rep who is talking about quitting is at month 3 and below ramp. What should the manager do in the next two weeks?
Read the worked answer
Treat it as a retention and diagnosis problem, not a performance problem:
- Have a direct conversation to separate skill gaps from motivation and from systemic blockers (lead flow, onboarding). Ask what would make the next 60 days winnable.
- Diagnose against leading indicators, not just revenue: is the rep creating pipeline, getting meetings, advancing deals? If activity and pipeline are healthy, the revenue gap is timing - reassure with the revised ramp. If pipeline is thin, it's a skill or channel problem.
- Provide immediate wins: pair with a mentor, hand over a warm account or two, and set a short-horizon goal (e.g., three qualified opportunities in two weeks) so the rep sees progress.
- Be transparent about the revised ramp and safety net so the month-4 cliff no longer looms.
- Decide honestly: if after diagnosis the fit is wrong, manage it fairly - but don't let a systemic ramp failure be read as the rep's failure.