---
name: hiring-team-building
description: "Hire and build EU teams: country-by-country labor law (probation, notice, leave, works councils), structured interviews and scorecards, ESOP/equity tax by jurisdiction, cross-border remote setup, team design. Use when writing JDs, designing interviews, drafting offers or contracts, setting up cross-border/remote work, or granting equity in the EU."
---

# Hiring & Team Building (EU)

> **Legal & tax disclaimer.** This skill is operational guidance for founders and managers, not legal, tax, or immigration advice. Employment law, social security, equity taxation, and posted-worker rules are national, change frequently, and turn on facts (sector, collective agreement, headcount, contract type). **Engage local employment counsel and a tax advisor before** signing contracts, terminating, running a redundancy/works-council process, setting up cross-border or remote employment, doing a TUPE/asset transfer, or granting equity (ESOP/BSPCE/etc.). Figures below are "as of Jun 2026" reference points — re-verify against the cited official source. For corporate tax, VAT, payroll rates and holding structures see the sibling skill **`eu-tax-accounting`**; for GDPR on candidate data and the EU AI Act treatment of HR/recruitment tools see **`eu-legal-compliance`**.

---

## EU Labor Law Essentials

### Employment contracts — required written terms

Directive **(EU) 2019/1152** ("Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions", transposed across the EU by **Aug 2022**) requires employers to give workers written information on the core terms, most within **7 calendar days** of the first working day and the rest within **1 month**:

- Identities of the parties, place(s) of work (or a statement that work location is variable / remote)
- Job title, grade, category, or a short job description; start date
- For fixed-term: end date or expected duration
- Probationary period and its conditions
- Remuneration (amount, components, frequency, method of payment)
- Working hours, overtime rules, and — for unpredictable schedules — reference hours/days and minimum notice
- Paid leave entitlement
- Notice periods for termination (or method of calculating them)
- Applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the body that concluded it
- Social security institutions receiving contributions and any employer-provided social protection
- For posted/expat workers: country, currency, additional benefits, repatriation terms

The Directive also caps probation at **6 months** (proportionate and shorter for short fixed-term contracts), bans exclusivity clauses that forbid working elsewhere, and requires that training the employer is legally obliged to provide is **free and counted as working time**.

> National law usually goes further (mandatory written contract, language, registration with authorities **before** day 1). Always use the local statutory minimum as the floor, the CBA as the next layer, and the contract on top.

### Country reference table — core employment terms (as of Jun 2026)

This inlines the country detail that callers need at the table. **Verify the live position with local counsel and the official sources noted; CBAs frequently override statutory defaults.**

| Country | Probation (typical max) | Statutory notice (employer, by tenure) | Statutory min paid leave | Works council / employee rep trigger | Notable hiring traps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Germany (DE)** | 6 months | 4 weeks rising with tenure to **7 months** (>20 yrs) under §622 BGB | 20 days (5-day wk); ~24–30 typical via CBA | **Betriebsrat** electable from **5** employees; co-determination escalates | Kündigungsschutz (unfair-dismissal protection) applies in firms **>10** staff after 6 months — termination needs a legally valid ground + often a works-council hearing |
| **France (FR)** | CDI: 2 mo (workers/employees) up to 4 mo (cadres), renewable once | 1 mo (6 mo–2 yr) / 2 mo (>2 yr); CBA often more | 25 working days (5 wk) + RTT days | **CSE** mandatory from **11** employees (expanded duties ≥50) | Heavy CBA coverage (*convention collective*); dismissal needs *cause réelle et sérieuse* + procedure; *rupture conventionnelle* is the common amicable exit |
| **Netherlands (NL)** | Max **1 mo** (contract <2 yr) / **2 mo** (≥2 yr or permanent); **none** if contract ≤6 mo | 1 mo (<5 yr) → up to 4 mo (≥15 yr); + *transitievergoeding* severance from day 1 | 4× weekly hours (**20 days** f/t) statutory; ~25 typical | **OR** (works council) mandatory from **50** employees | Dismissal needs **UWV permit or court** approval (no at-will); chain rule: 3 fixed-terms / 3 yrs → permanent |
| **Ireland (IE)** | No statutory cap; commonly 6 mo (12 mo unfair-dismissal qualifying period) | 1 wk (13 wk–2 yr) → 8 wk (>15 yr) | **4 weeks** (20 days) | No general statutory works council; EU info-&-consultation from 50 | Unfair Dismissals Act protection generally after **12 months**; written terms (core 5) due within **5 days** |
| **Spain (ES)** | 2 mo (>25-staff firms) / 6 mo for *técnicos titulados* | Statutory **15 days**; severance is the lever (see below) | **30 calendar days** (≈22 working) | Works council from **50**; staff delegates **6–49** | Severance: fair objective dismissal = **20 days/yr** (cap 12 mo); unfair = **33 days/yr** (cap 24 mo). Fixed-term abuse heavily penalised post-2021 reform |
| **Portugal (PT)** | Permanent: 90 days (180 for complex/trust roles, 240 senior mgmt) | 15–75 days depending on tenure | **22 working days** | Works council ("comissão de trabalhadores") constitutable by employees | Dismissal must be for just cause or collective/objective grounds with process; fixed-term rules tightened in 2023 *Agenda do Trabalho Digno* |
| **Belgium (BE)** | **No probation** (abolished 2014) — use a short notice period instead | Notice in **weeks**, rising with tenure (*Eenheidsstatuut*); e.g. first months = a few weeks | 20 days (legal) + extralegal/CBA | **CPPW/CE** from **50**; safety committee from 50 | Language law: contract must be in the region's language (NL in Flanders, FR in Wallonia, either in Brussels) or it can be void |
| **Poland (PL)** | Max **3 months** | 2 wk (<6 mo) / 1 mo (6 mo–3 yr) / 3 mo (>3 yr) | **20 days** (<10 yr service) / **26 days** (≥10 yr, incl. education) | Works council from **50** (on employee request) | 2023 reform added remote-work + control-of-sobriety rules and stronger fixed-term justification/notice parity |
| **Luxembourg (LU)** | 2 wk–6 mo (scales with salary band) | 2 mo (<5 yr) / 4 mo (5–10 yr) / 6 mo (≥10 yr) | **26 days** (since 2019) | *Délégation du personnel* mandatory from **15** employees | Strong dismissal protection; large cross-border workforce (FR/BE/DE *frontaliers*) → social-security coordination is routine, not exotic |
| **Italy (IT)** | Up to 6 mo (by category/CCNL) | Notice + severance (**TFR**) accrue; notice per CCNL | **4 weeks** (≈20–26 days/CCNL) | **RSU/RSA** union reps; from 15 staff *Statuto dei Lavoratori* protections | Art. 18 / Jobs Act reinstatement regime is litigated and evolving — get local counsel before any dismissal |

> Severance, dismissal procedure, and CBA obligations are where cross-border hires get expensive. Treat NL, ES, FR, DE as "no at-will" jurisdictions: budget time and money for any exit.

### Working time — what the Directive actually allows

Directive **2003/88/EC** (Working Time) sets, averaged over a reference period (default 4 months, extendable to 12 by CBA):

- **Max 48 h/week** average including overtime
- **Min 11 consecutive hours** daily rest; **24 h** weekly rest (commonly 35 h)
- **4 weeks** paid annual leave (Art. 7) — cannot be paid in lieu except on termination
- A rest break when the day exceeds 6 hours

**Opt-out nuance (correcting the common myth):** the **individual 48 h opt-out is not UK-only.** Article 22 lets *any* member state authorise individual opt-outs, and several EU states do permit them in specific forms or sectors (and there are separate derogations for autonomous/managing executives, on-call, and seasonal work). Conversely, several states (e.g. France, Spain) do **not** allow a general individual opt-out. So: check the **specific national transposition** for the role and sector rather than assuming "EU = no opt-out." The UK, now outside the EU, retains its own opt-out under retained law — relevant only if you employ in the UK.

### TUPE / business transfers (Directive 2001/23/EC)

On a business or asset transfer (acquisition, outsourcing, sometimes a service-provider change): affected employees transfer **automatically on existing terms**; dismissal **by reason of the transfer** is prohibited; the transferor and transferee must **inform and consult** employee representatives **before** the transfer. National transpositions differ (e.g. UK "TUPE", DE §613a BGB, FR L1224-1) on harmonisation of terms post-transfer and on pensions. **This is high-risk: get counsel before any deal that moves staff.**

---

## Job Description Framework

```markdown
# [Role Title] — [Team]

## Impact (what success looks like in 12 months — max 3 bullets)
- Owns and ships [outcome], measured by [metric]

## Responsibilities (6–8 bullets, verbs not vibes)

## Requirements (HARD filters only — things you'd reject a CV for)
- [N] years building [specific, checkable skill/stack]
- Legally authorized to work in [country/EU] (or: we sponsor — see immigration note)

## Preferred (nice-to-haves — NEVER used to reject)
- [adjacent tech / domain]

## Compensation & terms
- Salary range: €X–€Y (state it; see pay-transparency note below)
- Equity / bonus, benefits, leave, remote policy, location/visa
```

**Inclusive-language checklist (process controls, not folklore):**
- [ ] No coded/gendered terms ("rockstar", "ninja", "manpower", "young/energetic", "native speaker"). Run JD through a gendered-language linter (e.g. Textio-style word lists) before posting.
- [ ] Keep the **Requirements** list short (≈5 hard filters) and move everything else to **Preferred**. *Rationale:* long must-have lists measurably shrink and skew applicant pools; an inclusive-hiring heuristic — sometimes quoted as "women apply only at ~100% match vs men at ~60%" — is a **frequently-cited claim from a single internal HP report popularised in *Lean In*, not a robust peer-reviewed finding; treat it as a prompt to trim requirements, not as evidence.** The defensible move is simply: fewer hard filters → larger, more diverse pool.
- [ ] **State the salary range** (now a hard requirement in a growing number of EU states — see Pay Transparency below).
- [ ] Offer reasonable accommodations and name a contact.
- [ ] List the concrete benefits that disproportionately matter to underrepresented candidates (parental leave for all genders, flexible/remote, sick/mental-health support).

---

## Structured Interview Design

Structured, scored interviews are among the **most predictive and least biased** selection methods (consistently out-predicting unstructured interviews in meta-analyses of selection validity). The mechanics:

1. **Same questions, same order, same rubric** for every candidate for a given role.
2. **Anchored rubric** (behaviourally-defined 1/3/5) written *before* the role opens.
3. **Independent scoring**: every interviewer submits scores **before** any group discussion, to kill anchoring/groupthink.
4. **Evidence, not gut**: every score cites what the candidate said/did.

### Interview scorecard (inline template)

| Competency | Question | 1 — Miss | 3 — Meet | 5 — Exceed | Score (1–5) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical depth | "Walk me through how you'd design [system]" | Can't articulate trade-offs | Solid design, reasonable trade-offs | Novel insight, anticipates edge cases & failure modes | _ | _ |
| Problem-solving | "Tell me about a hard bug you debugged" | Vague, no structure | STAR structure, clear resolution | Found systemic fix, prevented recurrence | _ | _ |
| Collaboration | "Describe a disagreement with a colleague" | Blames others | Resolved constructively | Improved a team process as a result | _ | _ |
| Ownership | "A project you drove end-to-end" | Executed assigned tasks | Owned scope + delivery | Spotted the need, proposed + delivered | _ | _ |
| Role-specific | [tailored to the JD's hard filters] | … | … | … | _ | _ |

**Decision rule (set before interviewing):** e.g. "average ≥ 3.5 AND no competency below 2 AND ≥1 strong-hire from the panel." Define it up front so the bar can't drift per candidate.

### Standard loop (respect candidate time)

| Stage | Length | Owner | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 30 min | Recruiter/HM | Role fit, must-haves, comp + location alignment, visa |
| Technical | 60 min | Engineer | Live problem or take-home (**cap take-homes at ~3 h; pay for longer**) |
| System / craft | 45 min | Senior IC | Architecture, trade-offs, depth |
| Values / behavioural | 45 min | Cross-functional | Scorecard above |
| Debrief | 30 min | Panel + HM | **Independent scores submitted first**, then discuss, then decide vs the rule |

### Structured debrief form (inline template)

Run the debrief synchronously, but collect this **from each interviewer in writing first**:

```markdown
# Debrief — [Candidate] — [Role] — [Date]

Per interviewer (submitted BEFORE discussion):
- Overall: Strong Hire / Hire / No Hire / Strong No Hire
- Competency scores (from scorecard): [Tech _ , Problem _ , Collab _ , Ownership _ , Role _ ]
- Strongest evidence FOR:
- Strongest evidence AGAINST:
- Open questions / risks to probe in references:

Panel synthesis (after independent submission):
- Scores spread / disagreements: [note any 2-point gaps and resolve with evidence, not seniority]
- Decision vs pre-set rule (avg ≥ 3.5, none < 2, ≥1 Strong Hire): PASS / FAIL
- If hire: leveling + proposed range + start-date constraints
- If no-hire: 1-line reason (for funnel analytics + candidate feedback)
```

### Reference-check script (inline template)

Do **2 references minimum**, ideally including a former manager; **get the candidate's consent** and (in the EU) handle the data under GDPR (lawful basis, minimise, retain only as needed — see **`eu-legal-compliance`**). Ask about collaboration and growth, not just raw skill:

```markdown
# Reference check — [Candidate] via [Referee, relationship, dates worked together]

1. In what context did you work together, and for how long?
2. What were [Candidate]'s main responsibilities and biggest deliverable?
3. What are they genuinely excellent at? Give a concrete example.
4. Where did they need the most support / coaching?
5. How did they handle disagreement, feedback, or a setback?
6. How would you describe their reliability and ownership under pressure?
7. Would you hire/work with them again, and in what kind of role?  (Listen for hesitation, not just the yes.)
8. Is there anything I haven't asked that I should know to set them up to succeed?
```

> Red flags: refusal to name a manager reference, only personal references, evasive answers on #4/#7. Don't ask about protected characteristics (health, family plans, age, etc.) — illegal in the EU and irrelevant.

---

## Remote & Cross-Border Employment in the EU

Cross-border remote is **not one problem — it's six**, and they have different tests, authorities, and triggers. Conflating them is the #1 way founders create accidental tax/PE exposure. Separate them:

| Workstream | Core question | Governing rule (EU) | Practical trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Social security** | Which country's system collects contributions? | Reg. **(EC) 883/2004** + impl. 987/2009; **A1 certificate** proves coverage | Generally the country of work; for cross-border *telework*, the 2023 **EU Framework Agreement on telework** lets employees stay in the **employer's** state if they telework **<50%** from their residence (only between signatory states, on request) |
| **Payroll / wage tax registration** | Where must the employer register & withhold? | National payroll law of the work country | Often triggered the moment an employee habitually works there — may force a local entity or an **Employer of Record (EOR)** |
| **Personal income tax residency** | Where does the individual pay income tax? | Bilateral **double-tax treaties** (OECD model tie-breakers) — *not* a flat 183-day rule | The treaty tie-breaker (permanent home → centre of vital interests → habitual abode → nationality), not residence-day count alone |
| **Corporate permanent establishment (PE)** | Does the remote worker create a taxable presence for the *company*? | **OECD MTC Art. 5** (fixed place of business **and** the dependent-agent/contract-concluding test) as adopted in the relevant treaty | A home office can be a PE if it's at the company's disposal and used habitually for the business, **or** if the person habitually concludes/negotiates contracts binding the company. **It is a facts-and-circumstances analysis, not "183 days."** |
| **Immigration / right to work** | May this person legally work from there? | National immigration + EU free-movement (EU/EEA nationals) | Non-EU nationals need a permit/visa for the actual work location; "work from anywhere" ≠ a work permit |
| **Posted workers** | Sending an employee temporarily to another EU state? | Dir. **96/71/EC** as revised by **(EU) 2018/957** + enforcement Dir. 2014/67 | Apply the **host country's** minimum pay, working-time, leave and safety rules; A1 + posting declaration required |

**Operating checklist per cross-border / remote hire:**
- [ ] Decide the **employment vehicle**: own local entity, an **EOR/PEO**, or (only for genuine independents) a contractor agreement — see misclassification below.
- [ ] **Social security:** obtain the **A1**; assess the 2023 telework framework (`<50%` rule) before defaulting to the work-country system.
- [ ] **Payroll:** confirm registration/withholding duties in the work country; don't run foreign payroll off a single home-country PAYE without advice.
- [ ] **Income tax residency:** apply the treaty tie-breaker for the individual; watch days but don't rely on 183 alone.
- [ ] **PE:** run a real Art. 5 analysis if the person is senior, client-facing, or signs/negotiates deals; document why a PE is/ isn't created.
- [ ] **Immigration:** verify right-to-work at the *physical* work location (esp. non-EU nationals and "work-from-abroad" requests).
- [ ] **Posting:** if temporary cross-border, file the posting declaration and apply host minimums.

> For the corporate-tax and payroll-rate side of PE/holding decisions, see **`eu-tax-accounting`** (corporate rates, substance requirements, payroll/social-contribution tables by country).

### Contractor vs employee — misclassification risk

Hiring an "independent contractor" who is in practice integrated, controlled, and economically dependent on you is **misclassification** — and EU enforcement is tightening (e.g. the EU **Platform Work Directive**, adopted 2024, introduces a rebuttable **presumption of employment** for platform work, transposition due ~2026; many states already apply substance-over-form tests). Consequences: back-payment of social contributions and wage tax, leave/severance entitlements, fines, and personal/director liability in some states. **Decide on substance (control, integration, exclusivity, who bears risk), not the label on the invoice**, and get advice before scaling a contractor model.

### Right to disconnect — by jurisdiction (as of Jun 2026)

The "right to disconnect" lets employees switch off outside working hours without penalty. There is **no single EU statute** (the European Parliament asked the Commission for a directive in 2021; a Commission proposal has been folded into the broader social-partner / telework discussions and is **not yet binding EU law** — verify current status at <https://eur-lex.europa.eu>). National positions differ:

| Country | Status (as of Jun 2026) | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| **France** | In force since **2017** (Loi Travail, Art. L2242-17) | Mandatory negotiation in firms ≥50; policy/charter on after-hours connection |
| **Belgium** | In force | Public sector + firms **≥20** must agree disconnection arrangements (2022 Labour Deal) |
| **Portugal** | In force since **2021/22** | Employer **may not contact** staff outside hours except force majeure; penalties apply |
| **Spain** | In force since **2018** | Digital-rights law (LOPDGDD Art. 88) — internal disconnection policy required |
| **Ireland** | **Code of Practice (2021)** — not a standalone statute | Admissible in WRC proceedings; not a direct penalty regime |
| **Italy** | For **agile/smart work** (Law 81/2017) | Disconnection terms set in the individual smart-work agreement |
| **Germany / Netherlands / Poland** | **No dedicated statute** as of Jun 2026 | Governed by working-time/rest rules + collective agreements; proposals debated |

> Action: even where not mandatory, publish a written after-hours/availability policy — it reduces working-time and overtime disputes and supports well-being. Re-verify each country before relying on it; this area is moving.

---

## Onboarding (30-60-90)

| Phase | Focus | Deliverables |
|---|---|---|
| **Pre-boarding** (before day 1) | Admin + welcome | Signed contract + statutory written terms, equipment shipped, accounts/access provisioned, buddy assigned, week-1 calendar booked |
| **Days 1–30 — Learn** | Context | Meet team & stakeholders, understand architecture/product, ship a **first small PR/task**, read key docs, 1:1 cadence set |
| **Days 31–60 — Contribute** | Ownership | Own a feature/area, shadow on-call, give first demo, mid-probation check-in |
| **Days 61–90 — Own** | Independence | Deliver independently, full performance + culture check-in, **two-way** feedback, probation decision |

### 30-60-90 check-in template (inline)

Run a structured check-in at day **30, 60, and 90** (the 90-day one usually = the probation review). Keep it two-directional:

```markdown
# [Name] — Day [30/60/90] Check-in — [Date] — Manager: [..]

## Ramp (manager view)
- On track / Ahead / Behind vs the 30-60-90 plan? Evidence:
- Strengths showing up:
- Gaps / risks + the support being put in place:

## Goals for this phase (≤3, specific & checkable)
1.
2.
3.

## New hire's view
- What's going well / what's unclear or blocking me:
- Do I have the access, context, and tooling I need?  [Y/N + gaps]
- Is the role what I expected? Any mismatch on scope/level/comp?
- Feedback for my manager / the onboarding process:

## Day-90 only — Probation decision
- Confirm / Extend (where lawful) / Not confirm  + documented rationale
- If confirming: leveling check, comp/equity confirmed, next-quarter goals set
- NOTE: in several EU states probation length and any extension are statutorily limited
  and dismissal still requires process — confirm with local counsel before acting.
```

---

## Compensation & Equity

### Benchmarking sources

- **levels.fyi**, **Glassdoor** (global), **Figures.hr** and **Ravio** (EU/UK-focused), **Mercer**/**Radford** (enterprise surveys).
- Benchmark by **role × level × location/market × company stage**. Decide your **target percentile** (e.g. P50 base, P75 for senior/scarce skills) and pay-mix (base/bonus/equity) explicitly.

### EU Pay Transparency — status by jurisdiction (as of Jun 2026)

Two layers apply, and they are **live now in several countries**, not only in 2027:

**1. EU Pay Transparency Directive (EU) 2023/970** — transposition deadline **7 June 2026** (i.e. essentially now). Once national laws are in force, expect: candidates' **right to pay information before/at interview** and a **ban on asking salary history**; reporting of the gender pay gap (phased by size — broadly employers **≥150** report from 2027, **≥100** from 2031, with member states able to go further/faster); a **joint pay assessment** if an unjustified gap **>5%** can't be explained; and **shift of the burden of proof** to the employer in equal-pay claims.

**2. Pre-existing national pay-transparency rules already in force** (examples; verify locally):

| Country | What's already required (as of Jun 2026) |
|---|---|
| **Ireland** | Gender Pay Gap reporting; threshold lowering toward **50** employees |
| **Germany** | *Entgelttransparenzgesetz* — individual right to pay info in firms **>200**; reporting duties for large firms |
| **France** | **Index Égalité** annual gender-equality score (firms ≥50), penalties for low scores |
| **Spain** | Mandatory pay register & equality plan (firms ≥50) |
| **Sweden / others** | Annual pay surveys / equality mapping |

> Practical, defensible defaults regardless of country: **publish salary ranges in every posting, never ask for salary history, run an annual pay-equity audit, and document the objective criteria** (level, skills, location) behind pay. Confirm the exact transposed obligation per country at <https://eur-lex.europa.eu> and the national labour ministry.

### ESOP / employee equity — tax by jurisdiction (as of Jun 2026)

> **This table is a planning starting point only.** Equity taxation depends on the instrument (options vs RSUs vs *BSPCE* vs virtual/phantom), grant/vesting/exercise/sale timing, eligibility conditions, and **social contributions** — which often dwarf the headline income-tax line. **Always get local employment + tax counsel before granting.** The core problem to design around is **"dry income"**: tax due at exercise/vesting when the employee has no cash and the shares are illiquid.

| Country | Common instrument | Taxable event(s) | Headline treatment + the parts the simple version omits |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Germany (DE)** | Options / virtual; **§19a EStG** deferral | Normally at exercise (taxed as employment income); **§19a** can defer the wage-tax on transferred shares | **§19a deferral conditions are NOT just "revenue <€100M."** The deferral applies to qualifying employer shares and, post **Zukunftsfinanzierungsgesetz (2024)**, broadened SME thresholds and a longer deferral horizon (deferral commonly to **~15 years**, sale, or leaving the employer). Eligibility tests look at company **age, headcount, and turnover/balance-sheet** size — verify the current thresholds with a German tax advisor; gains on sale are then taxed (capital income / part-exemption rules may apply). |
| **France (FR)** | **BSPCE** (qualifying startups) | At **sale** of shares (no tax at grant/exercise for qualifying BSPCE) | Gain split into the BSPCE "acquisition gain" (employment-linked) + any later capital gain. The **flat 12.8% income-tax PFU is only part of it — add 17.2% social levies (≈30% total "flat tax")**, and the favourable rate depends on **≥3 years' seniority** and the company meeting BSPCE eligibility (age, listing, ownership, activity). Non-qualifying instruments (stock options/AGA) follow different, often harsher, regimes. |
| **Netherlands (NL)** | Stock options | Since **1 Jan 2023**: employee may **elect to defer** taxation from exercise to the moment the shares become **tradeable** (liquidity), instead of being taxed at exercise | Removes much of the dry-income problem, but the taxable benefit is still **employment income** (box 1, up to ~49.5%) and subject to conditions/elections; later disposal may fall under box 2/3. Confirm the current rules with a Dutch advisor. |
| **Ireland (IE)** | **KEEP** scheme options (SMEs) | Qualifying KEEP gains taxed at **CGT (33%) on sale**, not income tax/USC/PRSI at exercise | KEEP has **strict eligibility** (qualifying company size/sector, qualifying employee, holding/working conditions, option limits) and has been repeatedly tweaked — verify current limits with Revenue/advisor. Non-qualifying options are taxed as income at exercise (RTSO). |
| **Spain (ES)** | Options | Employment income at exercise | **Startup Law (Ley 28/2022)** gives a stock-option exemption **up to €50,000/year** for qualifying startups and can defer the remainder. Eligibility tracks the startup-law definition — see **`eu-tax-accounting`** §Spain. |
| **Belgium / others** | Options (1999 Stock Option Law model in BE) | BE: often taxed at **grant/acceptance** on a notional benefit | Country-specific and unusual (BE taxing at grant is a notable trap). Always localise. |

**Design checklist before any grant:** model the **dry-income** exposure at each event; confirm **social contributions** (employee *and* employer), not just income tax; set vesting + **cliff** and **good/bad-leaver** terms enforceable under local law; decide options vs RSUs vs virtual/phantom per jurisdiction; document a 409A-equivalent **valuation**; and get the grant docs reviewed by local employment + tax counsel.

---

## Team Topology Patterns

| Pattern | When to use | Communication mode |
|---|---|---|
| **Stream-aligned** | Default. Team owns a product/service slice end-to-end | Minimise cross-team dependencies; fast flow |
| **Platform** | Shared internal capability (CI/CD, auth, data) | Self-service product/APIs; minimise tickets |
| **Enabling** | Temporary coaching (e.g. help a team adopt k8s) | Time-boxed; goal is skill transfer, then leave |
| **Complicated-subsystem** | Deep specialist domain (ML, video codec, crypto) | Well-defined interface contract to other teams |

**Rule of thumb (cognitive load):** size a team's domain so it fits in the team's heads. If they can't hold it, the domain is too big — split it or give it a platform/enabling team. Keep teams long-lived and **Two-Pizza** sized (~5–9); reorganise the **boundaries**, not the people, when flow stalls.

---

## Performance Reviews (OKR-based)

**Quarterly cycle:**
1. **Set OKRs** — 3–5 objectives, 2–4 key results each; mix output ("ship X") with outcome ("improve Y by Z%"). KRs must be measurable.
2. **Monthly check-in** — progress, blockers, support needed (a 15-min item in the 1:1).
3. **Quarter end** — self-assessment + manager assessment; score each KR **0–1.0**; aim **0.6–0.7** for ambitious goals (consistently hitting 1.0 means they were sandbagged).
4. **Calibration** — cross-team calibration so ratings mean the same thing across managers; guard against recency and halo bias.

**Decouple ratings from comp signalling:** OKR scores should **not mechanically set bonuses**, or people will sandbag targets. Use a separate, holistic performance + behaviour assessment for comp, with documented criteria (supports pay-transparency defensibility above).

---

## Diversity & Inclusion — process controls + funnel metrics

Replace folklore with **process controls** and **measured funnels**:

- [ ] **Structured, scored interviews** with a pre-written rubric and **independent scoring before discussion** (the single biggest bias reducer — see above).
- [ ] **Blind initial screening** where feasible (strip name, photo, age, university from the first CV pass).
- [ ] **Diverse panels** (aim ≥1 interviewer from an underrepresented group; never tokenise a single person across every loop).
- [ ] **Inclusive JD + short hard-filter list** (see JD section).
- [ ] **Inclusive benefits**: parental leave for all genders, flexible/remote, sick & mental-health support.
- [ ] **Annual pay-equity audit**; fix unexplained gaps proactively (now also a legal lever under the Pay Transparency Directive).
- [ ] Set **targets (aspirational), not quotas** (hard quotas can be unlawful and counter-productive); report quarterly.

**Funnel metrics to track at each stage** — instrument the pipeline and look for the stage where representation drops:

| Stage | Metric | What a drop here tells you |
|---|---|---|
| Sourcing | % from each group in applicant pool | Sourcing channels / JD language problem |
| Screen | Screen pass-rate by group | Screener bias or unclear must-haves |
| Interview | On-site→offer rate by group | Interview/ rubric or panel-composition bias |
| Offer | Offer-accept rate by group | Comp competitiveness or candidate experience gap |
| Retention | 12-month regretted attrition by group | Inclusion/belonging or manager problem post-hire |

> Handle all candidate diversity data under GDPR (special-category data needs a lawful basis and tight access controls) — see **`eu-legal-compliance`**. **Note also the EU AI Act:** recruitment/HR screening tools are **high-risk (Annex III)** — if you use AI to screen, rank, or assess candidates you inherit obligations (risk management, data governance, human oversight, transparency, logging). Details in **`eu-legal-compliance`** (EU AI Act section).

---

## Hiring Process — end-to-end workflow

This replaces the old flowchart pointer; the flow is the checklist. Each step gates the next.

```
Headcount approved
  └─► Define role: scorecard + hard-filter requirements + comp range  (BEFORE sourcing)
        └─► Write inclusive JD (with salary range) ──► Publish + source (multi-channel: boards, referrals, outreach)
              └─► Recruiter screen (30m) ─[pass: role/comp/visa fit]─► reject w/ feedback if fail
                    └─► Structured interview loop (technical / system / values) — same Qs, anchored rubric
                          └─► Independent scoring submitted ──► Debrief ──► decision vs PRE-SET rule
                                ├─ No-hire ─► log reason in funnel + send feedback
                                └─ Hire ─► References (≥2, incl. a manager) + leveling
                                      └─► Written offer: ALL Dir. 2019/1152 terms + comp/equity/location/visa
                                            └─► Acceptance ─► Pre-boarding triggers (contract, equipment, access, buddy)
                                                  └─► 30-60-90 onboarding plan shared w/ hire + manager
                                                        └─► Probation check-ins at midpoint + end ─► confirm decision
```

**Master checklist:**
- [ ] Headcount + budget + comp band approved
- [ ] Scorecard + hard-filter requirements defined **before** opening the role
- [ ] Inclusive JD published **with salary range**
- [ ] Sourced from ≥3 channels (boards, referrals, direct outreach) to diversify the pool
- [ ] Structured interviews; **scores submitted independently before** the debrief
- [ ] Decision made against the **pre-set rule**, not vibes; no-hire reason logged for funnel analytics
- [ ] ≥2 reference checks (collaboration + growth, with consent, GDPR-handled)
- [ ] Written offer covering **all** statutory written terms (Dir. 2019/1152) + comp/equity/location/visa
- [ ] Local-counsel review for the **contract, any cross-border setup, equity grant, or non-standard term**
- [ ] Pre-boarding triggered on acceptance; 30-60-90 plan shared
- [ ] Probation reviews scheduled at midpoint and end (mindful of statutory probation/dismissal limits)