4 ms·

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

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?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Hey, if you say so. If this is working out for you, that's great. I wouldn't do it. I'd tell friends not to go along with it. In Q1'2011, I wouldn't have wanted to do anything that made it even epsilon harder to recruit and retain the best people. But I'm (a) in a talent-intensive business with fierce competition for people, and (b) a consultant who knows a bit about how contracts are actually valued and who thus thinks anyone getting less than $XXX/hr for 1099 dev work might be getting jacked.
    - swampthing 16y ago
      To each their own - if your only goal is to minimize missing qualified people, then I would agree that you should offer FT offers to everyone. If you have a stronger goal of minimizing the number of unqualified people you hire, then that's a different issue. Personally, I'd rather work at a company that falls into the latter category.
      - staunch 16y ago
        Yup. "No false positives" is my goal. I've experienced what happens when a company gets bloated and teams get diluted with bozos. Even one person can poison a team. Firing people is bad for a team too. I'm determined to avoid that to a great extent. I know of no other way than actually working with a person to determine whether I want to keep working with them. I don't think most people even question how ridiculous it is that companies interview a person for a couple hours and then agree to work with them for many months or years before they will even consider firing them (usually only after additional months of trying to "work it out"). In my opinion the best recruitment tool is having a team that a potential candidate would be really happy (and lucky) to work with. You can only do that if you keep standards up and hire slowly and methodically. A bit of a pain in the beginning, but worth it for everyone involved in the end.
        andrewem 16y ago
        Does not giving someone a full-time offer after the short-term contract hurt the team like firing someone? I could imagine it going either way. Perhaps it's better because those not in their contract period don't start thinking "it could happen to me at any time."
- bugsy 16y ago
  I agree with you, and want to add some more about this. Usually the 90 day things are from companies that also want you to sell your house and relocate to where they are. Often you do a fantastic job and are let go at the end of the 90 days because 90% of the time this scheme is how disreputable companies hire contractors for 90 day stints while paying low rates with no benefits. Now sure, this guy is the rare 10% that is completely honest and pure, I will assume that and he has no ill motive at all. But the other 90% that he has no control over is the real issue with this. Most people with talent that have been around the block a couple times have gotten burned by this scam and avoid these scenarios like the plague. If you are a reputed expert the way you handle this is either handle it as a straight consulting job at your standard rate (which should be something like $180-$250/hr if you are any good at what you do or $120 if you are a newbie) for the 90 days, or you put a big fat penalty in the contract that if they say no at the end they have to pay severance to cover the full cost of both of your relocations, the one out there, and the one back, including losses from the required hasty real estate transactions. Will they agree to these? Usually not, and that's the point. You really only want to do business with people who are fair dealing, not people looking to cheat contractors through false promises. Another scam is the two day long interview where you work on some serious problem the company is having and it happens that you are known as an expert in that field, your name coming up on some searches. For me it was Windows graphics drivers. Back in the 1990s I would get tons of job interview requests and then would be treated to two days of intense querying to "prove" that I knew how to solve their problems in detail during which they either took a lot of notes or recorded the interview. Lots of other people get this one too. Another related scam is the programming problem you are supposed to solve which should take 30 minutes, but as an expert it takes a full week. Instead of being a puzzle it is something obviously related to their business. Just say no to all these! I know the bright eyed and bushy tailed kids won't listen, but this old geezer has to warn them nonetheless.
  - swampthing 16y ago
    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - plenty of scams out there, but the lesson is to look out for those that you mentioned, not to use the contractor stint as some sort of litmus test.
nuttycom 16y ago
As a candidate, I would like this approach a lot because it would give me a better opportunity to evaluate the organization to find out whether it'd be the kind of place I'd like to work. A short contract is an excellent way for both sides to evaluate one another and make sure that the fit is mutual; I've worked both in places where I loved the technology but disliked the culture and vice versa and neither one is great for long-term full time employment. Of course, that is provided that the company would be paying my standard consulting rate for the relevant 3-month period.

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?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Hey, if you say so. If this is working out for you, that's great. I wouldn't do it. I'd tell friends not to go along with it. In Q1'2011, I wouldn't have wanted to do anything that made it even epsilon harder to recruit and retain the best people. But I'm (a) in a talent-intensive business with fierce competition for people, and (b) a consultant who knows a bit about how contracts are actually valued and who thus thinks anyone getting less than $XXX/hr for 1099 dev work might be getting jacked.
  - swampthing 16y ago
    To each their own - if your only goal is to minimize missing qualified people, then I would agree that you should offer FT offers to everyone. If you have a stronger goal of minimizing the number of unqualified people you hire, then that's a different issue. Personally, I'd rather work at a company that falls into the latter category.
    - staunch 16y ago
      Yup. "No false positives" is my goal. I've experienced what happens when a company gets bloated and teams get diluted with bozos. Even one person can poison a team. Firing people is bad for a team too. I'm determined to avoid that to a great extent. I know of no other way than actually working with a person to determine whether I want to keep working with them. I don't think most people even question how ridiculous it is that companies interview a person for a couple hours and then agree to work with them for many months or years before they will even consider firing them (usually only after additional months of trying to "work it out"). In my opinion the best recruitment tool is having a team that a potential candidate would be really happy (and lucky) to work with. You can only do that if you keep standards up and hire slowly and methodically. A bit of a pain in the beginning, but worth it for everyone involved in the end.
      - andrewem 16y ago
        Does not giving someone a full-time offer after the short-term contract hurt the team like firing someone? I could imagine it going either way. Perhaps it's better because those not in their contract period don't start thinking "it could happen to me at any time."
bugsy 16y ago
I agree with you, and want to add some more about this. Usually the 90 day things are from companies that also want you to sell your house and relocate to where they are. Often you do a fantastic job and are let go at the end of the 90 days because 90% of the time this scheme is how disreputable companies hire contractors for 90 day stints while paying low rates with no benefits. Now sure, this guy is the rare 10% that is completely honest and pure, I will assume that and he has no ill motive at all. But the other 90% that he has no control over is the real issue with this. Most people with talent that have been around the block a couple times have gotten burned by this scam and avoid these scenarios like the plague. If you are a reputed expert the way you handle this is either handle it as a straight consulting job at your standard rate (which should be something like $180-$250/hr if you are any good at what you do or $120 if you are a newbie) for the 90 days, or you put a big fat penalty in the contract that if they say no at the end they have to pay severance to cover the full cost of both of your relocations, the one out there, and the one back, including losses from the required hasty real estate transactions. Will they agree to these? Usually not, and that's the point. You really only want to do business with people who are fair dealing, not people looking to cheat contractors through false promises. Another scam is the two day long interview where you work on some serious problem the company is having and it happens that you are known as an expert in that field, your name coming up on some searches. For me it was Windows graphics drivers. Back in the 1990s I would get tons of job interview requests and then would be treated to two days of intense querying to "prove" that I knew how to solve their problems in detail during which they either took a lot of notes or recorded the interview. Lots of other people get this one too. Another related scam is the programming problem you are supposed to solve which should take 30 minutes, but as an expert it takes a full week. Instead of being a puzzle it is something obviously related to their business. Just say no to all these! I know the bright eyed and bushy tailed kids won't listen, but this old geezer has to warn them nonetheless.
- swampthing 16y ago
  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - plenty of scams out there, but the lesson is to look out for those that you mentioned, not to use the contractor stint as some sort of litmus test.

nuttycom 16y ago

As a candidate, I would like this approach a lot because it would give me a better opportunity to evaluate the organization to find out whether it'd be the kind of place I'd like to work. A short contract is an excellent way for both sides to evaluate one another and make sure that the fit is mutual; I've worked both in places where I loved the technology but disliked the culture and vice versa and neither one is great for long-term full time employment. Of course, that is provided that the company would be paying my standard consulting rate for the relevant 3-month period.