5 ms·

Matt Mullenweg advocates audition/tryouts instead of job interviews. https://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-auditions-to-build-a-strong-team

Matt Mullenweg advocates audition/tryouts instead of job interviews. https://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-auditions-to-build-a-strong-team https://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-aud...

Merad 9y ago
That has to be one of the most employee-hostile hiring strategies I've ever read.
- cwyers 9y ago
  You're pretty much limited to hiring either only the jobless or someone with the ability to work two jobs at once for an extended period of time while you hold your tryout. There are a lot of people who can't devote that kind of time to a second job (some candidates burn a week's vacation!) And it's not some mere formality, according to their stats they hire about a third of the people they try out.
  - gjkood 9y ago
    And don't forget anti-moonlighting clauses in current employment contracts.
  - Ensorceled 9y ago
    I presume they only hire about a third of the people who try out for the same reasons you mention; the only candidates are the jobless or people willing to screw their current employer and moonlight while "working from home". Sounds like a recipe for a bunch of bad candidates.
  - Merad 9y ago
    > or someone with the ability to work two jobs at once for an extended period of time while you hold your tryout. This is the part that's crazy to me. If you think you can accurately judge someone based the work they perform after a full normal workday/week, I have some beachfront property on the moon to sell you... I have a feeling their conversion rate is so low because a lot of people get another offer during their trial and immediately jump ship.
    - pebers 9y ago
      > I have a feeling their conversion rate is so low because a lot of people get another offer during their trial and immediately jump ship. Or because they're just selecting against good candidates in the first place; if you've got a good job and are performing well elsewhere, you're less likely to jump through that kind of hoop. It's easy to persuade yourself you're hiring the best candidates by being strict about selecting from a pool that is already heavily biased (I'm pretty sure Joel Spolsky wrote something along those lines years ago, so this is hardly a new insight).
- meowface 9y ago
  "I'll pay you $50/hour to work on a project here, Monday to Wednesday. At the end, you'll either get the job or we'll find a different candidate." I'd take that over every other bullshit interview process I've gone through in the past, while also feeling satisfied that it's a more accurate assessment of how I would actually perform at the job.
  - cwyers 9y ago
    > The most significant shift we’ve made is requiring every final candidate to work with us for three to eight weeks on a contract basis. Candidates do real tasks alongside the people they would actually be working with if they had the job. They can work at night or on weekends, so they don’t have to leave their current jobs; most spend 10 to 20 hours a week working with Automattic, although that’s flexible. It's far more extensive than three nights.
    - meowface 9y ago
      Ok, yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. In concept, though, I think these kinds of trials can be a win-win.
  - Merad 9y ago
    Honestly I don't find this a realistic option either (although better than the approach in the GP's linked article...). IME at many companies you will be in great shape if you're set up with accounts/licenses/permissions/etc so that you can theoretically do something useful by the start of your second week. Once you have all of that set up, you still typically need a few days or a week+ being brought up to speed on projects, the structure of existing code/systems/etc. Personally I feel like if you can't come up with an interview process that gives you enough confidence to risk a 3-6 month onboarding period on a new hire, you're doing something wrong.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Merad 9y ago

That has to be one of the most employee-hostile hiring strategies I've ever read.

cwyers 9y ago
You're pretty much limited to hiring either only the jobless or someone with the ability to work two jobs at once for an extended period of time while you hold your tryout. There are a lot of people who can't devote that kind of time to a second job (some candidates burn a week's vacation!) And it's not some mere formality, according to their stats they hire about a third of the people they try out.
- gjkood 9y ago
  And don't forget anti-moonlighting clauses in current employment contracts.
- Ensorceled 9y ago
  I presume they only hire about a third of the people who try out for the same reasons you mention; the only candidates are the jobless or people willing to screw their current employer and moonlight while "working from home". Sounds like a recipe for a bunch of bad candidates.
- Merad 9y ago
  > or someone with the ability to work two jobs at once for an extended period of time while you hold your tryout. This is the part that's crazy to me. If you think you can accurately judge someone based the work they perform after a full normal workday/week, I have some beachfront property on the moon to sell you... I have a feeling their conversion rate is so low because a lot of people get another offer during their trial and immediately jump ship.
  - pebers 9y ago
    > I have a feeling their conversion rate is so low because a lot of people get another offer during their trial and immediately jump ship. Or because they're just selecting against good candidates in the first place; if you've got a good job and are performing well elsewhere, you're less likely to jump through that kind of hoop. It's easy to persuade yourself you're hiring the best candidates by being strict about selecting from a pool that is already heavily biased (I'm pretty sure Joel Spolsky wrote something along those lines years ago, so this is hardly a new insight).
meowface 9y ago
"I'll pay you $50/hour to work on a project here, Monday to Wednesday. At the end, you'll either get the job or we'll find a different candidate." I'd take that over every other bullshit interview process I've gone through in the past, while also feeling satisfied that it's a more accurate assessment of how I would actually perform at the job.
- cwyers 9y ago
  > The most significant shift we’ve made is requiring every final candidate to work with us for three to eight weeks on a contract basis. Candidates do real tasks alongside the people they would actually be working with if they had the job. They can work at night or on weekends, so they don’t have to leave their current jobs; most spend 10 to 20 hours a week working with Automattic, although that’s flexible. It's far more extensive than three nights.
  - meowface 9y ago
    Ok, yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. In concept, though, I think these kinds of trials can be a win-win.
- Merad 9y ago
  Honestly I don't find this a realistic option either (although better than the approach in the GP's linked article...). IME at many companies you will be in great shape if you're set up with accounts/licenses/permissions/etc so that you can theoretically do something useful by the start of your second week. Once you have all of that set up, you still typically need a few days or a week+ being brought up to speed on projects, the structure of existing code/systems/etc. Personally I feel like if you can't come up with an interview process that gives you enough confidence to risk a 3-6 month onboarding period on a new hire, you're doing something wrong.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]