5 ms·

One has to think why the concept of employment is still considered like marriage that require such an extensive ultra-deep multi-level deliberations. Let's say

One has to think why the concept of employment is still considered like marriage that require such an extensive ultra-deep multi-level deliberations. Let's say you were local, why it shouldn't be possible to give someone on-the spot offer after half-day of interviews as well as let them go with, say 2 weeks of standard severance if things don't work out?

gnarbarian 7y ago
Bringing someone up to speed in a large complicated ecosystem is extremely expensive. They will have to invest months into you before you will be capable of contributing in a way that isn't a net loss and a drag on existing team members. At worst you pose a massive threat to the company/codebase. LOL i accidentally leaked all our secrets to china/apple/MS whoops.
- sytelus 7y ago
  But most of these companies/teams already employ massive numbers of contractors. They typically sign NDAs and often work on same code. I've been on development teams which had contractors as 20% or more members. We had just couple of interviews and next-day offers for contractors while full timers went through multi-month process. Both worked on same code, often similarly complex tasks and used same on-boarding docs etc. One difference was that full timers were given more longer term tasks although, looking back, I feel many longer tasks simply became longer term because of tribal knowledge full timers developed and kept to themselves. The contractors were required to extensively document everything all the time :).
dodobirdlord 7y ago
At a large technology company with its own software stack it takes several months before a new hire isn’t a net-negative to the team they join. And it will be months after that before they reach full productivity. A bad hire is an extremely expensive mistake.
- sytelus 7y ago
  A bad hires are expensive mistake if you can't get rid of them until some artificial annual event. While I understand onboarding complexities, my experience is that the teams/companies which hasn't create good automated process so new hire can commit their first change within 2-days are big red flag (this was insisted upon by Zuck extensively at Facebook scale). I would also argue that culture of hire/replace team members in agile manner would help enforce this process more naturally and vice versa.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Being able to make a change, and being able to make a change without handholding are two different things. > hire/replace team members in agile manner would help enforce this process more naturally and vice versa Places where this happens are normally considered very high stress and competitive.
  - s1t5 7y ago
    > I would also argue that culture of hire/replace team members in agile manner would help enforce this process more naturally and vice versa. You're arguing in favour of high turnover - that can't be good neither for the company nor for the employees.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
matz1 7y ago
Because employment is indeed like marriage. Divorce and bad marriage is costly.
chrisseaton 7y ago
It costs millions of dollars to hire someone at a place like Google. If you get it wrong you’re making an extremely expensive mistake.
nieksand 7y ago
As much as our industry sucks at interviewing, it sucks at performance management even more. A congenial but mediocre developer can stick around forever in most places once they're in. This performance management weakness also makes me suspicious of various companies claiming to have nailed the interview process.
- kv_hrishikesh 7y ago
  A congenial but mediocre developer may actually be more valuable than a rowdy and talented one because she pisses off less number of other brilliant developers.
  - nieksand 7y ago
    Correct. But that congenial/mediocre developer is still taking up a headcount that could hold a congenial/high-performing developer instead. There is also a separate issue where mediocrity discourages high-performers.
michaelt 7y ago
That would be a creative and different way to hire local unemployed people. But it'll give you a reputation that makes it difficult to entice the sort of people whose current employers don't want them to leave.
perl4ever 7y ago
I mean, in some places, with some companies, they hire people as temps or contractors and later make them permanent. That effectively amounts to the arrangement you describe. This can't be obscure, so I don't understand your tone as if it was. It's just a matter of what kind of employment you consider worth applying for.

gnarbarian 7y ago

Bringing someone up to speed in a large complicated ecosystem is extremely expensive. They will have to invest months into you before you will be capable of contributing in a way that isn't a net loss and a drag on existing team members. At worst you pose a massive threat to the company/codebase. LOL i accidentally leaked all our secrets to china/apple/MS whoops.

sytelus 7y ago
But most of these companies/teams already employ massive numbers of contractors. They typically sign NDAs and often work on same code. I've been on development teams which had contractors as 20% or more members. We had just couple of interviews and next-day offers for contractors while full timers went through multi-month process. Both worked on same code, often similarly complex tasks and used same on-boarding docs etc. One difference was that full timers were given more longer term tasks although, looking back, I feel many longer tasks simply became longer term because of tribal knowledge full timers developed and kept to themselves. The contractors were required to extensively document everything all the time :).

dodobirdlord 7y ago

At a large technology company with its own software stack it takes several months before a new hire isn’t a net-negative to the team they join. And it will be months after that before they reach full productivity. A bad hire is an extremely expensive mistake.

sytelus 7y ago
A bad hires are expensive mistake if you can't get rid of them until some artificial annual event. While I understand onboarding complexities, my experience is that the teams/companies which hasn't create good automated process so new hire can commit their first change within 2-days are big red flag (this was insisted upon by Zuck extensively at Facebook scale). I would also argue that culture of hire/replace team members in agile manner would help enforce this process more naturally and vice versa.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Being able to make a change, and being able to make a change without handholding are two different things. > hire/replace team members in agile manner would help enforce this process more naturally and vice versa Places where this happens are normally considered very high stress and competitive.
- s1t5 7y ago
  > I would also argue that culture of hire/replace team members in agile manner would help enforce this process more naturally and vice versa. You're arguing in favour of high turnover - that can't be good neither for the company nor for the employees.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

matz1 7y ago

Because employment is indeed like marriage. Divorce and bad marriage is costly.

chrisseaton 7y ago

It costs millions of dollars to hire someone at a place like Google. If you get it wrong you’re making an extremely expensive mistake.

nieksand 7y ago

As much as our industry sucks at interviewing, it sucks at performance management even more. A congenial but mediocre developer can stick around forever in most places once they're in. This performance management weakness also makes me suspicious of various companies claiming to have nailed the interview process.

kv_hrishikesh 7y ago
A congenial but mediocre developer may actually be more valuable than a rowdy and talented one because she pisses off less number of other brilliant developers.
- nieksand 7y ago
  Correct. But that congenial/mediocre developer is still taking up a headcount that could hold a congenial/high-performing developer instead. There is also a separate issue where mediocrity discourages high-performers.

michaelt 7y ago

That would be a creative and different way to hire local unemployed people. But it'll give you a reputation that makes it difficult to entice the sort of people whose current employers don't want them to leave.

perl4ever 7y ago

I mean, in some places, with some companies, they hire people as temps or contractors and later make them permanent. That effectively amounts to the arrangement you describe. This can't be obscure, so I don't understand your tone as if it was. It's just a matter of what kind of employment you consider worth applying for.