5 ms·

Will talented people be willing to give up their full time job for a job they may very likely get fired from? Automattic does something interesting from what I

Will talented people be willing to give up their full time job for a job they may very likely get fired from? Automattic does something interesting from what I've read. They have you work there as a trial for 1-2 months while keeping your full time job. This is probably pretty stressful but you get the ability to work with the candidate while not asking them to sacrifice their livelihood if things don't work out. Needless to say, it seems a lot of people don't get hired after the trial.

p4wnc6 11y ago
> Will talented people be willing to give up their full time job for a job they may very likely get fired from? Maybe, maybe not. If they are already on the job market, then they probably don't mind looking for a job. If they feel that taking your job and getting fired still leaves them financially covered for an additional 6 months of searching, then they may not care too much. If that company becomes known for this, then being "fired" from them won't really be a bad signal on your resume (if you even want to list it on your resume at all, depending on how long of a stint it is). I don't think my idea is perfect. No hiring method is perfect. But I think that businesses should take a perspective that's fundamentally more about investing in getting to know and support someone as they are on-boarded, instead of Spanish Inquisitioning them and if they don't run away screaming then rationalizing that you've hired the best possible person (who, surprise, leaves after 18 months anyway because you didn't assess their fit or how their aptitudes really match up with job needs, you just whiteboard hazed them).
marcosdumay 11y ago
If they are in the a-job-every-2-years treadmill, it may not make any difference. It probably depends on lots of factors, but I do like the consulting idea better.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  > a-job-every-2-years treadmill This is already caused as much by companies as it is by candidates who are job hoppers. When I see a resume with short stints, it basically has no effect on me any more. If the person is good and I do my job to make them happy to stay, that's the best I can hope for. Pretending like either I can predict who the job hoppers are in advance, or that I should only hire people who magically have some intrinsic desire to work for me no matter how I treat them are both fantasies.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Oh, absolutely. It tells nothing about the person. It's only that, if one is on that position, there won't be much downside to take your offer. But if one currently has a stable job, there is.

p4wnc6 11y ago

> Will talented people be willing to give up their full time job for a job they may very likely get fired from? Maybe, maybe not. If they are already on the job market, then they probably don't mind looking for a job. If they feel that taking your job and getting fired still leaves them financially covered for an additional 6 months of searching, then they may not care too much. If that company becomes known for this, then being "fired" from them won't really be a bad signal on your resume (if you even want to list it on your resume at all, depending on how long of a stint it is). I don't think my idea is perfect. No hiring method is perfect. But I think that businesses should take a perspective that's fundamentally more about investing in getting to know and support someone as they are on-boarded, instead of Spanish Inquisitioning them and if they don't run away screaming then rationalizing that you've hired the best possible person (who, surprise, leaves after 18 months anyway because you didn't assess their fit or how their aptitudes really match up with job needs, you just whiteboard hazed them).

marcosdumay 11y ago

If they are in the a-job-every-2-years treadmill, it may not make any difference. It probably depends on lots of factors, but I do like the consulting idea better.

p4wnc6 11y ago
> a-job-every-2-years treadmill This is already caused as much by companies as it is by candidates who are job hoppers. When I see a resume with short stints, it basically has no effect on me any more. If the person is good and I do my job to make them happy to stay, that's the best I can hope for. Pretending like either I can predict who the job hoppers are in advance, or that I should only hire people who magically have some intrinsic desire to work for me no matter how I treat them are both fantasies.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Oh, absolutely. It tells nothing about the person. It's only that, if one is on that position, there won't be much downside to take your offer. But if one currently has a stable job, there is.