I disagree, at least in the startup case. In my experience, unless you know the person very well and they have demonstrated that they can deliver what they need to, you're only adding extra headache for yourself. If someone's work is drifting away from what you intend, it's a lot easier to spot that over their shoulder and change courses on the spot rather than wait for code to land in your repo and find out after a lot of time and effort has been wasted.
Well that's my point, actually. There should be no 'wait for code to land in your repo'. There should be some peer review before then. There should be daily discussion on progress and problems.
Coders shouldn't be a black box that you hope to get the right answer out of. They should be talked to, but talked to as adults. You don't need to pressure them, you just need to ask for progress (not deadlines!) and help them resolve any issues they have.
Any programmers that have been beaten down in traditional shops will try to avoid the above because they'll think you're pressuring them slyly, instead of openly. You have to be absolutely open and honest and ethical about everything to overcome that.