4 ms·

So say you are at a job. fairly happy. Maybe not your dream job, but you decide to look around and interview with me. I could present you two options: 1) I ju

So say you are at a job. fairly happy. Maybe not your dream job, but you decide to look around and interview with me. I could present you two options: 1) I just hire you after a 30 minute chat. 50% you don't work out, and we fire you after 30 days. 2) We have a longer interview. We whiteboard. We take home test. We whiteboard some more. 90% chance that you don't get fired after 30 days. Which would you prefer? As a business owner, I am happy to just try people I don't know well - IFF they are willing to accept that there is a very good chance they are fired within the first 30 days. There is such a huge range in developers. The haves vs the have-nots can be a 100x different productivity difference. I really want to try to tease that difference out. It is really really hard.

Clubber 8y ago
#1. I'm totally fine with firing after 30 days if I don't work out. I'm positive it won't, so I'd prefer to prove myself doing real work. That's the way it used to be done and I think we should go back to doing that. Read the resume, ask some questions about the resume, 30 minutes to an hour full interview, done. You get hired on, put on a probationary period, if they don't work out, fire them.
rattaz 8y ago
No way! The lamers you end up firing (after 30 days' pay) will easily make a living out of it. They could even be PARALLEL lamers, pulling 30 days pay off multiple sucker companies.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Hah, you should be able to see the pattern pretty quick? Wow, 8 jobs last year? Busy life?
  - miranda_rights 8y ago
    It seems like they could easily drop half of those jobs off of their resume. That's usually the advice given for people who leave jobs after a short period.
- Clubber 8y ago
  At my current company, we fired a guy after 3 days because he misrepresented his skills. I didn't interview or hire him, but I suspect his buddy did the interview.
actionowl 8y ago
> 1) I just hire you after a 30 minute chat. 50% you don't work out, and we fire you after 30 days. Personally, that's my preference. If I don't think I can do the job I'll know after a 30 minute chat.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Right, then maybe it would self select out those that can't do the job. Interesting idea. If you fire fast enough it may not actually cost that much more money to a business to hire a bit more as long as you fire the bad ones fast.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Same here. I feel I have vastly more control of my work performance over the course of 30 days than I have control of the assessment of 6 interviewers after seeing me for 30 minutes. In other words, I think there is far more than 50% chance that things work out after 30 days and far less than 50% chance that I impress 6 interviewers.
cableshaft 8y ago
> 2) We have a longer interview. We whiteboard. We take home test. We whiteboard some more. 90% chance that you don't get fired after 30 days. But a 400% increase in that you find some sort of excuse not to hire me and I won't even get hired in the first place. Your percentages only make #2 more attractive if there's a more-or-less equal chance of being hired both ways.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Well, #2 makes more sense if you value stability and not suprises. I suspect many people would rather do 10 interviews and then get 1 job they keep for a year+ compared to 2 interviews and a 50% chance the job that hire them, fires them in 30 days. But I could be wrong, mostly basing on what I would want.
specialp 8y ago
Actually I would greatly prefer option 1. I am very confident that given nearly any situation I will prove my worth and have never had an employer disappointed with my work. I am not as confident I would complete a contrived coding skill challenge on the spot on a whiteboard because I never work like that in reality. My job is to sit here and solve unique problems by any means available to me in a maintainable and scalable way. I do that very well and that is hard to test via whiteboard implementations of contrived examples. That is how it works in other fields. One of our managers asked his friend that owns a body shop how he finds good employees. He basically has a chat with them, feels them out, then hires them. If they don't work out he hires someone else. Perhaps it shouldn't be as stigmatic as "firing" after 30 days but you have instead hired someone on a 30 day contract with option to hire permanently. If they don't work out, that option is not exercised and that person is free to go try somewhere else. I can tell pretty quickly from chatting with a developer if they are a total fraud. I can't tell really quickly who will become a great dev, I just know when someone has the chops to have potential.
maxk42 8y ago
There's such a thing as contract-to-hire for this exact scenario. Why did the industry seem to forget this?
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Most good developers are already in a stable job. I would not leave a w2 job for a contract job. Nor would any good developer I know. This is why the industry "forgets" it. It's not that attractive to a good candidate.
  - maxk42 8y ago
    I've done it many times. It's attractive if the offer is attractive. Last one I took was a $20k raise over the prior job. The one before that was a $30k raise. It's only risky if you're not confident in your skills.

Clubber 8y ago

#1. I'm totally fine with firing after 30 days if I don't work out. I'm positive it won't, so I'd prefer to prove myself doing real work. That's the way it used to be done and I think we should go back to doing that. Read the resume, ask some questions about the resume, 30 minutes to an hour full interview, done. You get hired on, put on a probationary period, if they don't work out, fire them.

rattaz 8y ago

No way! The lamers you end up firing (after 30 days' pay) will easily make a living out of it. They could even be PARALLEL lamers, pulling 30 days pay off multiple sucker companies.

brianwawok 8y ago
Hah, you should be able to see the pattern pretty quick? Wow, 8 jobs last year? Busy life?
- miranda_rights 8y ago
  It seems like they could easily drop half of those jobs off of their resume. That's usually the advice given for people who leave jobs after a short period.
Clubber 8y ago
At my current company, we fired a guy after 3 days because he misrepresented his skills. I didn't interview or hire him, but I suspect his buddy did the interview.

actionowl 8y ago

> 1) I just hire you after a 30 minute chat. 50% you don't work out, and we fire you after 30 days. Personally, that's my preference. If I don't think I can do the job I'll know after a 30 minute chat.

brianwawok 8y ago
Right, then maybe it would self select out those that can't do the job. Interesting idea. If you fire fast enough it may not actually cost that much more money to a business to hire a bit more as long as you fire the bad ones fast.
ryandrake 8y ago
Same here. I feel I have vastly more control of my work performance over the course of 30 days than I have control of the assessment of 6 interviewers after seeing me for 30 minutes. In other words, I think there is far more than 50% chance that things work out after 30 days and far less than 50% chance that I impress 6 interviewers.

cableshaft 8y ago

> 2) We have a longer interview. We whiteboard. We take home test. We whiteboard some more. 90% chance that you don't get fired after 30 days. But a 400% increase in that you find some sort of excuse not to hire me and I won't even get hired in the first place. Your percentages only make #2 more attractive if there's a more-or-less equal chance of being hired both ways.

brianwawok 8y ago
Well, #2 makes more sense if you value stability and not suprises. I suspect many people would rather do 10 interviews and then get 1 job they keep for a year+ compared to 2 interviews and a 50% chance the job that hire them, fires them in 30 days. But I could be wrong, mostly basing on what I would want.

specialp 8y ago

Actually I would greatly prefer option 1. I am very confident that given nearly any situation I will prove my worth and have never had an employer disappointed with my work. I am not as confident I would complete a contrived coding skill challenge on the spot on a whiteboard because I never work like that in reality. My job is to sit here and solve unique problems by any means available to me in a maintainable and scalable way. I do that very well and that is hard to test via whiteboard implementations of contrived examples. That is how it works in other fields. One of our managers asked his friend that owns a body shop how he finds good employees. He basically has a chat with them, feels them out, then hires them. If they don't work out he hires someone else. Perhaps it shouldn't be as stigmatic as "firing" after 30 days but you have instead hired someone on a 30 day contract with option to hire permanently. If they don't work out, that option is not exercised and that person is free to go try somewhere else. I can tell pretty quickly from chatting with a developer if they are a total fraud. I can't tell really quickly who will become a great dev, I just know when someone has the chops to have potential.

maxk42 8y ago

There's such a thing as contract-to-hire for this exact scenario. Why did the industry seem to forget this?

brianwawok 8y ago
Most good developers are already in a stable job. I would not leave a w2 job for a contract job. Nor would any good developer I know. This is why the industry "forgets" it. It's not that attractive to a good candidate.
- maxk42 8y ago
  I've done it many times. It's attractive if the offer is attractive. Last one I took was a $20k raise over the prior job. The one before that was a $30k raise. It's only risky if you're not confident in your skills.