4 ms·

I would say that the alternative to that crappy process is something like "gradual hiring" (sorry, I'm the guy whose accent can be spread on bread) - you just s

I would say that the alternative to that crappy process is something like "gradual hiring" (sorry, I'm the guy whose accent can be spread on bread) - you just start working with a guy, giving him basic isolated tasks, and as he successfully progresses with his work, task are getting more and more complicated (salary, permissions as well). After few months of such freelance-ish work you can know for sure that this dude is compatible with the team, able to solve problems, able to learn. And only then he becomes an employee with offer, benefits and SO. I know a company (profitable, no-VC, small private hw/sw business) that has been practicing that for years. The scheme is quite simple: they "rent" people at bodyshops in Russia (it's relatively cheap there), work with them for some time and then offer them relocation to the HQ, paying some penalty to the bodyshop. Another well-known company has different version of this: they just hire everyone after very basic sanity check. It's pretty easy to get in, but at the same time it's even easier to be fired. Turnover at the company is horrible, but there's very strong core of managers/designers/devs, that survived all battles. My point is there's no way you can find out for sure the candidate is good for a) company b) project c) codebase d) team etc etc, unless he's clearly crazy/arrogant/stinks or whatever. So maybe that "gradual hire" is the answer. P.S.: Being at the other side of hiring process sucks too. May be even worse.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
That's an unacceptable offer for a lot of higher-tier developers. Literally un-acceptable - I'd never get poached by a contract-to-hire, especially one with no benefits. And even if I was forced to accept such a situation, I'd continue to send out resumes and take interviews while on contract-to-hire.
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  Agree, I wouldn't do that either. For those russian guys it's bit different though, as they are already hired, with decent salaries and benefits (for Russia). Moving to HQ is just a big (and questionable?) bonus.
- mastratton3 10y ago
  Agreed, it'd be tough to leave a company where things are going well to become a contractor at a no-name company. I also think I'd be much less willing to make a jump unless I had met a number of the current employees and founders and felt it would be a culture fit.
suresk 10y ago
'gradual hire' sounds great in theory, but it is going to be a pretty unattractive option for a lot of developers. One problem is the lack of certainty - why would I get 'gradually' hired somewhere if I have other options where I can get a permanent job right away? The bigger problem is the lack of benefits, which presumably includes health care. In the US, at least, this would make it pretty difficult - buying insurance on your own can be very expensive and going without it is risky/costly, so it would be a pretty big problem for a lot of people, especially those with health problems or a family. I think this method would highly select candidates that didn't have better options. The reason it works in your first example is that the person being gradually hired is employed by another firm that offers them stability and benefits in the meantime.
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  Well, there can be options, like "we're paying you a decent salary, and compensate insurance, but we can stop working with you within one day". The most important difference here is that company don't risk much. And the candidate don't need to quit his current job: just do some tasks 1-2 hours a day, for example, so it's not just "gradual hiring", but "gradual quit" as well.
Spooky23 10y ago
This sounds like a big waste of time for all parties. Just have a probation process with real gates. Fail probation if the people don't work. I've been successful with this process all sorts of environments, even in unionized civil service gigs.
paulannesley 10y ago
> you just start working with a guy, giving him basic isolated tasks, and as he successfully progresses with his work, task are getting more and more complicated (salary, permissions as well). After few months of such freelance-ish work you can know for sure that this dude is compatible with the team, able to solve problems, able to learn. And only then he becomes an employee with offer, benefits and SO. Careful not to presume or disseminate the idea that all candidates/hires are men.
- cyphar 10y ago
  Would you have made the same comment if GP had qualified everything with "she"? Also, many European languages have gendered grammar, which means that it is hard for English second-speakers to speak about someone in a gender-neutral way (for example, it would not be syntactically possible to create such sentences in Slavic languages).
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  Are you triggered?
  - Frondo 10y ago
    It's an interesting thought experiment, if the original poster had qualified every statement in a different way... "you just start working with a white person, giving the white person basic isolated tasks, and as the white person successfully progresses with their work, task are getting more and more complicated (salary, permissions as well). After few months of such freelance-ish work you can know for sure that this white person is compatible with the team, able to solve problems, able to learn. And only then the white person becomes an employee with offer, benefits and SO." Now, I'd like to declare right up front I don't think the original poster was trying to exclude women. I think the original poster just wasn't thinking about their writing at all. I think that's all the parent post was getting at--people should think more when they write, and make sure they think about what they're saying.
    - ar15saveslives 10y ago

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

That's an unacceptable offer for a lot of higher-tier developers. Literally un-acceptable - I'd never get poached by a contract-to-hire, especially one with no benefits. And even if I was forced to accept such a situation, I'd continue to send out resumes and take interviews while on contract-to-hire.

ar15saveslives 10y ago
Agree, I wouldn't do that either. For those russian guys it's bit different though, as they are already hired, with decent salaries and benefits (for Russia). Moving to HQ is just a big (and questionable?) bonus.
mastratton3 10y ago
Agreed, it'd be tough to leave a company where things are going well to become a contractor at a no-name company. I also think I'd be much less willing to make a jump unless I had met a number of the current employees and founders and felt it would be a culture fit.

suresk 10y ago

'gradual hire' sounds great in theory, but it is going to be a pretty unattractive option for a lot of developers. One problem is the lack of certainty - why would I get 'gradually' hired somewhere if I have other options where I can get a permanent job right away? The bigger problem is the lack of benefits, which presumably includes health care. In the US, at least, this would make it pretty difficult - buying insurance on your own can be very expensive and going without it is risky/costly, so it would be a pretty big problem for a lot of people, especially those with health problems or a family. I think this method would highly select candidates that didn't have better options. The reason it works in your first example is that the person being gradually hired is employed by another firm that offers them stability and benefits in the meantime.

ar15saveslives 10y ago
Well, there can be options, like "we're paying you a decent salary, and compensate insurance, but we can stop working with you within one day". The most important difference here is that company don't risk much. And the candidate don't need to quit his current job: just do some tasks 1-2 hours a day, for example, so it's not just "gradual hiring", but "gradual quit" as well.

Spooky23 10y ago

This sounds like a big waste of time for all parties. Just have a probation process with real gates. Fail probation if the people don't work. I've been successful with this process all sorts of environments, even in unionized civil service gigs.

paulannesley 10y ago

> you just start working with a guy, giving him basic isolated tasks, and as he successfully progresses with his work, task are getting more and more complicated (salary, permissions as well). After few months of such freelance-ish work you can know for sure that this dude is compatible with the team, able to solve problems, able to learn. And only then he becomes an employee with offer, benefits and SO. Careful not to presume or disseminate the idea that all candidates/hires are men.

cyphar 10y ago
Would you have made the same comment if GP had qualified everything with "she"? Also, many European languages have gendered grammar, which means that it is hard for English second-speakers to speak about someone in a gender-neutral way (for example, it would not be syntactically possible to create such sentences in Slavic languages).
ar15saveslives 10y ago
Are you triggered?
- Frondo 10y ago
  It's an interesting thought experiment, if the original poster had qualified every statement in a different way... "you just start working with a white person, giving the white person basic isolated tasks, and as the white person successfully progresses with their work, task are getting more and more complicated (salary, permissions as well). After few months of such freelance-ish work you can know for sure that this white person is compatible with the team, able to solve problems, able to learn. And only then the white person becomes an employee with offer, benefits and SO." Now, I'd like to declare right up front I don't think the original poster was trying to exclude women. I think the original poster just wasn't thinking about their writing at all. I think that's all the parent post was getting at--people should think more when they write, and make sure they think about what they're saying.
  - ar15saveslives 10y ago