4 ms·

(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 r

(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."

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."