3 ms·

A months-long hiring process can't compete with simply working alongside somebody for a day. It's a shame we haven't been able to scale up a solution that would

A months-long hiring process can't compete with simply working alongside somebody for a day. It's a shame we haven't been able to scale up a solution that would allow for this and be fair to all involved.

sokoloff 5y ago
What I find most amazing about those discussions is the passionate vitriol from future job-seekers for arrangements like that. Maybe it’s because they’re imagining it having all of today’s downsides plus taking longer, but it seems like it could so obviously be better yet it’s so loudly shouted down.
- Hasu 5y ago
  For every company that introduces a positive change into their hiring process that is 'obviously better' for both employers and employees, there are 9 (or more?) companies that will thoughtlessly add it to their already endless interview process. It's also super inconvenient to need to take an entire day for a job interview when I'm probably talking to several other companies and still have a full-time job. It can be worth it for the right offer, but it usually isn't.
  - TrevorJ 5y ago
    Yeah, I definitely don't see this as something that can be reasonably implemented into any standard hiring process. The closest approximation might be to work with someone on a contractor basis and then offer them a full time position, but this filters out a lot of people who only want full-time work.
yuliyp 5y ago
My first week at any job is mostly trying to get my bearings, and spending most of my time reading / listening. It's hard to skip ahead a few weeks and get that day instead of the first day, though.
TillE 5y ago
Beyond a simple FizzBuzz filter to screen out the truly bad applicants, it seems extraordinarily difficult to sort the rest. A probationary period (the norm in many countries) theoretically can do this, but in practice I think it again only helps screen out the egregiously poor employees.

sokoloff 5y ago

What I find most amazing about those discussions is the passionate vitriol from future job-seekers for arrangements like that. Maybe it’s because they’re imagining it having all of today’s downsides plus taking longer, but it seems like it could so obviously be better yet it’s so loudly shouted down.

Hasu 5y ago
For every company that introduces a positive change into their hiring process that is 'obviously better' for both employers and employees, there are 9 (or more?) companies that will thoughtlessly add it to their already endless interview process. It's also super inconvenient to need to take an entire day for a job interview when I'm probably talking to several other companies and still have a full-time job. It can be worth it for the right offer, but it usually isn't.
- TrevorJ 5y ago
  Yeah, I definitely don't see this as something that can be reasonably implemented into any standard hiring process. The closest approximation might be to work with someone on a contractor basis and then offer them a full time position, but this filters out a lot of people who only want full-time work.

yuliyp 5y ago

My first week at any job is mostly trying to get my bearings, and spending most of my time reading / listening. It's hard to skip ahead a few weeks and get that day instead of the first day, though.

TillE 5y ago

Beyond a simple FizzBuzz filter to screen out the truly bad applicants, it seems extraordinarily difficult to sort the rest. A probationary period (the norm in many countries) theoretically can do this, but in practice I think it again only helps screen out the egregiously poor employees.