6 ms·

My current system is: 1) Simple programming challenge (< 30 minutes) by email. To see if they can actually write good code. Resume/age/experience/location most

by staunch 16y ago

My current system is: 1) Simple programming challenge (< 30 minutes) by email. To see if they can actually write good code. Resume/age/experience/location mostly disregarded. 2) Casual discussion-style interview to get to know how they think and behave. 3) Short term contract with a predefined project (< 3 months) to see how they work over time. 4) Full time hire with salary + equity.

tptacek 16y ago
If (3) is working for you, great; however, bear in mind that it's a seller's market for talent right now. I'd neg an offer contingent on doing a 3 month contract first, and I'd advise my friends to do the same; why should I shoulder that risk, if there are 2-3 other good positions open that will take it on for me by offering FT right away?
- gommm 16y ago
  I think the problem between tptacek and me and the others arguing is that many of us are not from the USA... The USA being an At-Will employment system, there is not as much downside with hiring someone full time and the health care issue is specific to the US...
- ams6110 16y ago
  I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but a 90-day "probationary" period is absolutely commonplace in the USA. Not sure I see much difference.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I've never seen that in the US. I should add that to our hiring agreements! But I do agree with the other poster. Most high quality devs I know, worth their weight, won't sign on for that. Their view is that its a slap in the face from day one, and disrespect like that from management never gets better over time.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Talk to your lawyer. It may not necessarily be a win to add that clause. You have the ambient right to fire someone (in almost every locale in the US) with no reason whatsoever. Why qualify it?
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        Actually I was joking about adding. I have no plans to add such a thing. Our interview process has fortunately been solid enough that no one we've hired has been less than solid. And I think such a clause would backfire, since many of our best devs wouldn't have accepted on such conditions.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Virtually all employment in the US is at will, meaning you are continually on "probation". The difference between a contractor and an FT is that the contractor is 1099'd, pays both halves of FICA taxes, and isn't provided health insurance; more importantly, when the employer is as overt about the issue as "not hiring you full time", there's no implied social contract or norm ensuring you'll even end up getting the job. Contractors make significantly more money than full time devs partly for this reason. They're compensated for shouldering the risk of keeping a full book of work. Getting a good developer to work as a contractor for what will eventually be their FT wage is almost kind of a scam. This is a simple, practical issue. You're Sam, a developer with 5 years experience. You have a choice between two roughly equal jobs. One prospective employer offers you a full time job tomorrow; the other offers you a 3 month auditioning contract. Which offer do you pick?
    - swampthing 16y ago
      Try looking at it a different way - assume, you will have a full time job at either of these prospective employers. Do you want the one that makes FT offers immediately, or the one that makes them only after testing new people out for 3 months?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        I want the one that makes FT offers, because I don't believe that the best programmers, who can write their own ticket in this business climate, would put up with this contracting bullshit. This approach to hiring is a cop-out. It says, "we don't know how to hire properly, so we're going to push the risk onto the candidates".
        swampthing 16y ago
        I've seen the contracts with my own eyes. But I guess I can't prove that the developers in question were good without divulging names. Anyways, I don't see why this is a cop-out any more than any other hiring procedure. No company has anywhere near a 100% success rate - this procedure acknowledges the shortcomings of a traditional interview process (namely that succeeding on an interview and succeeding as a developer are two very different animals) and tries to address them.
  - evgen 16y ago
    Out here in SV it is almost unheard of; if someone is not working out after 90 or 180 or 365 days you drop them and move on. It is definitely a sellers market for talent here and anyone who is worthwhile enough to make an offer to is not going to put with an explicit probationary period (since everyone is a at-will employee and general non-competes are worthless the concept is pretty much a moot point anyway...)
    - staunch 16y ago
      The advantage of the contract with a specific project is two fold: 1) It makes it very easy for either party to end the relationship in a natural and simple way. Minimal hurt feelings/embarrassment/harm to morale, etc. 2) The project is at least semi-isolated so it's very clear how skilled the person is. They don't get lost in some "training" mode as a new hire spending 6 months "ramping up" on the primary codebase. They (hopefully) get an early win and earn respect and confidence from the beginning.
      - Stormbringer 16y ago
        The obvious disadvantage is that if you do hire a really good developer for a short project, they will have to start looking for their next contract almost straight away, and so you are likely to miss out on converting them to full time. By the time you've figured out they're good at what they do, they have another offer (at contracting rates).
- gommm 16y ago
  If the 3 month contract is paid the normal wage then I'd rather go to a company that does this because it means that there's an higher probability of having competent coworkers there. That's the reason why I do the same in my own company now. This is of course because he said he didn't care about location, so there's no moving costs and so on...
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Why would the competent developers migrate to the company that is more hostile, in a purely objective sense, than the alternatives?
    - patio11 16y ago
      It's like they're almost trying to winnow the pool down to developers whose programming ability outperforms their career experience and business sense. They certainly exist: I had the business sense of wet paint as recently as two years ago (which might explain why I willingly worked as a salaryman despite having perfect knowledge of the hours and salary).
      - staunch 16y ago
        Or winnowing it to people who have experienced the results of conventional hiring practices and want a place that is more rigorous about it. I spent many years hiring and working for companies that did it the way most people do it. The results speak for themselves: most companies suck to work for and most of them suck because of a few (or not so few) bozos and the environment they create.
    - ericd 16y ago
      That's kind of like asking why students choose to go to harder/more hostile universities.
      - Turing_Machine 16y ago
        You go to a challenging university because you want to take advantage of their knowledge, to the extent that you're willing to pay them for it. An employer wants to take advantage of your knowledge, to the extent that they're willing to pay you for it. The situations aren't comparable. I agree that three month contracts should be compensated at contractor wages rather than employee wages, unless the company is also paying for health benefits, some sort of portable retirement plan, etc. Otherwise you're giving up those items in return for zero commitment from the company. Not a good deal.
- swampthing 16y ago
  Conversely, (3) might attract some programmers who want to work at a place that is very careful about who they bring on FT. There are three risks compared to a FT offer - (1) the business goes south and they can't afford to bring you on FT (in which case you might be screwed even if you had gotten a FT offer), (2) you're not a cultural fit (in which case, it's the better outcome for everybody) and (3) you don't meet their standards.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    No, you've missed a key risk: (4) that the prospective employer continues to get resumes from people even after "filling" the position and decides on T+89 that you're great, but they can do even better. During the 90 day contract, both you and the employer must technically still be "looking" (the company still has an FT headcount to fill, and the dev still doesn't have a job). But the company is inherently better positioned to deal with the uncertainty: companies hire many people simultaneously, and keeping a req open costs them nothing. Individuals, on the other hand, have a very hard time conducting a serious job search and doing their 100% on a full-time job simultaneously. That is not actually a risk in the FT dev model, where the incentives are structured differently; it is instead very much more like the "up or out!" model of the Big 4 accounting firms or investment banks: you got the shot at the gig, now work your ass off to make sure you can keep it! If you are a friend of mine and you are staring down the barrel of one of these "contract-to-hire" offers, take my advice: turn it down. We've been hiring nonstop for the past couple years, including for dev, and it is ludicrously, insanely good to hire good people. You hold all the cards, except (tragically) the one labeled "knowing what you're worth".
    - swampthing 16y ago
      (4) isn't really a risk if the employer is following a consistent hiring procedure, since they will not have had the time necessary to evaluate your potential replacement. What sane employer is going to willingly pass up someone who's been vetted over 3 months (and determined to meet the standards) for an unknown?
      - 16y ago
- MetallicCloud 16y ago
  I've just started a new job, and I am on a 6 months probationary period, which apparently is standard for this company. It doesn't really phase me, I would be surprised if I was let go. I haven't worked anywhere that didn't at least have a 3 month probation period.
spamizbad 16y ago
Wow, you actually encounter people willing to take you up on #3 these days? They're either in love with your company or desperate for work.
- six0six 16y ago
  Someone who opts-in to #3 is not necessarily desperate. In fact, to the contrary, they likely also want an opportunity to feel the company out and be more confident in their choice to stay/leave at the end of 3mo.
  - btmorex 16y ago
    There's nothing preventing them from quitting after 3 months with a normal offer.
    - shangaslammi 16y ago
      Depends on the contract. Over here (Finland) it's very common to have a three months "trial period", during which both the employer and employee are free to terminate the contract at (practically) any point and for any reason. However, after that three months, you need to give a one month advance notice to quit and firing someone becomes more complicated too.
      - damncabbage 16y ago
        Same here in Australia; I'm about to start a trial period of a few months with a single week's notice for termination from either side. (Every job I've held has had this in some form or other. I'd wager it's common in countries with termination rules that aren't quite so, uh, "at will" as the US'.)
  - ootachi 16y ago
    That "opportunity" is not worth having no company-provided health insurance, nor is it worth paying both halves of the FICA tax, except for the desperate.

by staunch 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

If (3) is working for you, great; however, bear in mind that it's a seller's market for talent right now. I'd neg an offer contingent on doing a 3 month contract first, and I'd advise my friends to do the same; why should I shoulder that risk, if there are 2-3 other good positions open that will take it on for me by offering FT right away?

gommm 16y ago
I think the problem between tptacek and me and the others arguing is that many of us are not from the USA... The USA being an At-Will employment system, there is not as much downside with hiring someone full time and the health care issue is specific to the US...
ams6110 16y ago
I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but a 90-day "probationary" period is absolutely commonplace in the USA. Not sure I see much difference.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I've never seen that in the US. I should add that to our hiring agreements! But I do agree with the other poster. Most high quality devs I know, worth their weight, won't sign on for that. Their view is that its a slap in the face from day one, and disrespect like that from management never gets better over time.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Talk to your lawyer. It may not necessarily be a win to add that clause. You have the ambient right to fire someone (in almost every locale in the US) with no reason whatsoever. Why qualify it?
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      Actually I was joking about adding. I have no plans to add such a thing. Our interview process has fortunately been solid enough that no one we've hired has been less than solid. And I think such a clause would backfire, since many of our best devs wouldn't have accepted on such conditions.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Virtually all employment in the US is at will, meaning you are continually on "probation". The difference between a contractor and an FT is that the contractor is 1099'd, pays both halves of FICA taxes, and isn't provided health insurance; more importantly, when the employer is as overt about the issue as "not hiring you full time", there's no implied social contract or norm ensuring you'll even end up getting the job. Contractors make significantly more money than full time devs partly for this reason. They're compensated for shouldering the risk of keeping a full book of work. Getting a good developer to work as a contractor for what will eventually be their FT wage is almost kind of a scam. This is a simple, practical issue. You're Sam, a developer with 5 years experience. You have a choice between two roughly equal jobs. One prospective employer offers you a full time job tomorrow; the other offers you a 3 month auditioning contract. Which offer do you pick?
  - swampthing 16y ago
    Try looking at it a different way - assume, you will have a full time job at either of these prospective employers. Do you want the one that makes FT offers immediately, or the one that makes them only after testing new people out for 3 months?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I want the one that makes FT offers, because I don't believe that the best programmers, who can write their own ticket in this business climate, would put up with this contracting bullshit. This approach to hiring is a cop-out. It says, "we don't know how to hire properly, so we're going to push the risk onto the candidates".
      - swampthing 16y ago
        I've seen the contracts with my own eyes. But I guess I can't prove that the developers in question were good without divulging names. Anyways, I don't see why this is a cop-out any more than any other hiring procedure. No company has anywhere near a 100% success rate - this procedure acknowledges the shortcomings of a traditional interview process (namely that succeeding on an interview and succeeding as a developer are two very different animals) and tries to address them.
- evgen 16y ago
  Out here in SV it is almost unheard of; if someone is not working out after 90 or 180 or 365 days you drop them and move on. It is definitely a sellers market for talent here and anyone who is worthwhile enough to make an offer to is not going to put with an explicit probationary period (since everyone is a at-will employee and general non-competes are worthless the concept is pretty much a moot point anyway...)
  - staunch 16y ago
    The advantage of the contract with a specific project is two fold: 1) It makes it very easy for either party to end the relationship in a natural and simple way. Minimal hurt feelings/embarrassment/harm to morale, etc. 2) The project is at least semi-isolated so it's very clear how skilled the person is. They don't get lost in some "training" mode as a new hire spending 6 months "ramping up" on the primary codebase. They (hopefully) get an early win and earn respect and confidence from the beginning.
    - Stormbringer 16y ago
      The obvious disadvantage is that if you do hire a really good developer for a short project, they will have to start looking for their next contract almost straight away, and so you are likely to miss out on converting them to full time. By the time you've figured out they're good at what they do, they have another offer (at contracting rates).
gommm 16y ago
If the 3 month contract is paid the normal wage then I'd rather go to a company that does this because it means that there's an higher probability of having competent coworkers there. That's the reason why I do the same in my own company now. This is of course because he said he didn't care about location, so there's no moving costs and so on...
- tptacek 16y ago
  Why would the competent developers migrate to the company that is more hostile, in a purely objective sense, than the alternatives?
  - patio11 16y ago
    It's like they're almost trying to winnow the pool down to developers whose programming ability outperforms their career experience and business sense. They certainly exist: I had the business sense of wet paint as recently as two years ago (which might explain why I willingly worked as a salaryman despite having perfect knowledge of the hours and salary).
    - staunch 16y ago
      Or winnowing it to people who have experienced the results of conventional hiring practices and want a place that is more rigorous about it. I spent many years hiring and working for companies that did it the way most people do it. The results speak for themselves: most companies suck to work for and most of them suck because of a few (or not so few) bozos and the environment they create.
  - ericd 16y ago
    That's kind of like asking why students choose to go to harder/more hostile universities.
    - Turing_Machine 16y ago
      You go to a challenging university because you want to take advantage of their knowledge, to the extent that you're willing to pay them for it. An employer wants to take advantage of your knowledge, to the extent that they're willing to pay you for it. The situations aren't comparable. I agree that three month contracts should be compensated at contractor wages rather than employee wages, unless the company is also paying for health benefits, some sort of portable retirement plan, etc. Otherwise you're giving up those items in return for zero commitment from the company. Not a good deal.
swampthing 16y ago
Conversely, (3) might attract some programmers who want to work at a place that is very careful about who they bring on FT. There are three risks compared to a FT offer - (1) the business goes south and they can't afford to bring you on FT (in which case you might be screwed even if you had gotten a FT offer), (2) you're not a cultural fit (in which case, it's the better outcome for everybody) and (3) you don't meet their standards.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No, you've missed a key risk: (4) that the prospective employer continues to get resumes from people even after "filling" the position and decides on T+89 that you're great, but they can do even better. During the 90 day contract, both you and the employer must technically still be "looking" (the company still has an FT headcount to fill, and the dev still doesn't have a job). But the company is inherently better positioned to deal with the uncertainty: companies hire many people simultaneously, and keeping a req open costs them nothing. Individuals, on the other hand, have a very hard time conducting a serious job search and doing their 100% on a full-time job simultaneously. That is not actually a risk in the FT dev model, where the incentives are structured differently; it is instead very much more like the "up or out!" model of the Big 4 accounting firms or investment banks: you got the shot at the gig, now work your ass off to make sure you can keep it! If you are a friend of mine and you are staring down the barrel of one of these "contract-to-hire" offers, take my advice: turn it down. We've been hiring nonstop for the past couple years, including for dev, and it is ludicrously, insanely good to hire good people. You hold all the cards, except (tragically) the one labeled "knowing what you're worth".
  - swampthing 16y ago
    (4) isn't really a risk if the employer is following a consistent hiring procedure, since they will not have had the time necessary to evaluate your potential replacement. What sane employer is going to willingly pass up someone who's been vetted over 3 months (and determined to meet the standards) for an unknown?
    - 16y ago
MetallicCloud 16y ago
I've just started a new job, and I am on a 6 months probationary period, which apparently is standard for this company. It doesn't really phase me, I would be surprised if I was let go. I haven't worked anywhere that didn't at least have a 3 month probation period.

spamizbad 16y ago

Wow, you actually encounter people willing to take you up on #3 these days? They're either in love with your company or desperate for work.

six0six 16y ago
Someone who opts-in to #3 is not necessarily desperate. In fact, to the contrary, they likely also want an opportunity to feel the company out and be more confident in their choice to stay/leave at the end of 3mo.
- btmorex 16y ago
  There's nothing preventing them from quitting after 3 months with a normal offer.
  - shangaslammi 16y ago
    Depends on the contract. Over here (Finland) it's very common to have a three months "trial period", during which both the employer and employee are free to terminate the contract at (practically) any point and for any reason. However, after that three months, you need to give a one month advance notice to quit and firing someone becomes more complicated too.
    - damncabbage 16y ago
      Same here in Australia; I'm about to start a trial period of a few months with a single week's notice for termination from either side. (Every job I've held has had this in some form or other. I'd wager it's common in countries with termination rules that aren't quite so, uh, "at will" as the US'.)
- ootachi 16y ago
  That "opportunity" is not worth having no company-provided health insurance, nor is it worth paying both halves of the FICA tax, except for the desperate.