3 ms·
I wonder if a sensible option might be short term contract-to-hire scenarios. You have three promising candidates? Instead of trying to extract signal from gi
by hakfoo 7y ago
I wonder if a sensible option might be short term contract-to-hire scenarios.
You have three promising candidates? Instead of trying to extract signal from gimmick interview tactics, hire them all and put them on a 3-month contract with the opportunity to renew to full time. Then you're giving them real weork instead of easily crammed questions, and remove some of the anxiety affecting interview performance.
- frosted-flakes 7y agoThat would make switching jobs really hard, effectively making the interview process three months long. Only now, candidates have to quit their current job before they can interview, and if the first "contract" doesn't end in a job offer, the candidate no longer has a job.
- numpad0 7y agoThen you just set up your business so 90% of your company is filled with said 3-month workers at minimum wages. There’ll be no shortages of applicants for quite some time but really destroys the society. So no. No unless I’m guaranteed that upper echelon slot to judge them — no I wouldn’t want to live in a society like that.
- bigtunacan 7y agoThat would be fine for new college graduates and other unemployed developers, not so well at attracting talent that already has steady employment.
- perl4ever 7y agoIf you have a steady job, then there may not be as much social utility in optimizing things for your situation.
- SlavikCA 7y agoIf I employed fulltime now, then I'm unlikely to consider switching to 3 months contract. On the other hand, I think it may be a good idea for the company to consider: - either hire fulltime somebody, who has solid track record and "prooved" themself during on interview OR - offer 3 months contract to someone, who is not that good at passing interviews, so they can prove themself doing real work.