You can’t have it both ways though. If you have a more selective process than the one that hires-then-fires-after-3-months, you’re _already_ going more than 6 m

You can’t have it both ways though. If you have a more selective process than the one that hires-then-fires-after-3-months, you’re _already_ going more than 6 months without filling the role, because by being risk averse to hiring “bad” candidates, you’re passing on good candidates. So either you pay the cost by trying more people more quickly, or you pay the cost desperately waiting and waiting because you’re so confident your interviewing filter is tuned correctly and that you know better regarding who to hire. (In a small company, the process of hiring is often quite poor because it’s idiosyncratically controlled by the early employees and founders, and usually reinforces their cultural views and their biases of interviewing, so having a restrictive filter is even more harmful to small companies.)