4 ms·

I agree with most of what you say, especially about simplifying and shortening the process, but I'm not sure about: >"It's a risky proposition in both directio

by nickff 5y ago

I agree with most of what you say, especially about simplifying and shortening the process, but I'm not sure about: >"It's a risky proposition in both directions" It seems like the worst case for the developer is that they get paid for doing nothing useful for a while, then have to find another job. The worst case for the company is that they pay out a bunch of money, and dedicate a variety of resources, to someone who delays a (hopefully non-vital) project. This is not a symmetrical proposition.

deeblering4 5y ago
> they get paid for doing nothing useful for a while, then have to find another job. That's true, but if they took advantage and get fired then they would have poor references and a spotty employment history, which will negatively affect getting another job (and would have been a factor in the hiring of the current role). So in that way there is an incentive for the candidate to perform well in order to maintain their career, and they do risk that track record to some extent when taking on a new role. It sucks for both sides if things don't work out.