4 ms·
"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 tha
by meowface 10y 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 10y 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 10y agoOk, yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. In concept, though, I think these kinds of trials can be a win-win.
- Merad 10y agoHonestly 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.