4 ms·

Contract to hire is the way to go, even if a short time. Most jobs are like that anyways, the first weeks/months are still part of the hiring process. This test

Contract to hire is the way to go, even if a short time. Most jobs are like that anyways, the first weeks/months are still part of the hiring process. This tests the worker in the actual environment. The contract could even be remote and sectioned off from the larger enterprise, just like any contractors added currently. The important part of contract-to-hire is it shows how the person will communicate while working, which is not really verified in any way with a take-home or whiteboard setup. Going straight to full employment is like going from strangers to marriage, contracting is a dating phase. As someone who has been freelancing/contracting for a long while, it is much preferred to full-time employment and essential ownership anyways. I personally don't mind take home tests, everything you do you can learn from and this gives you somewhat an idea of the type of company you are working with (not necessarily the work). Though they should be paid, as people that are in demand would be more willing to do them as well as the company more invested in reviewing them. However, in no way is the take home test a good indicator of how this person will ship product.

ghaff 4y ago
>Most jobs are like that anyways The difference is in the presumed defaults. If you hire me, my assumption is that outside of company/organizational problems/changed of some sort, you'll keep me around so long as I'm reasonably competent. Contract to hire on the other hand , sends off a vibe of we'll probably hire you if you wow us. Which, if someone already has a job or has other good offers in hand, is not going to sound like a great deal unless it's a company/position they really want and are very confident they can do.
- drawkbox 4y ago
  > sends off a vibe of we'll probably hire you if you wow us Same with interviewing/take-home/whiteboard. It is just a better realistic view of the company. It not only makes it a "wow us" for the worker to the workplace, it is also the workplace to the worker. It is a two way street with a more realistic sample. It also reduces the friction of locked in employment. Creative/programming/product/design are all creative fields, most projects/products like that have more flex/contractor style arrangements based on projects/products not necessarily the company such as movies, music, books, etc. Most of my career has been in games/interactive/agency style projects/products so it may make more sense there. You can't judge creativity and product shipping capabilities with a take-home/whiteboard/interview very well. The sample is much smaller. The better way is the body of work and a real test that is longer or closer to the actual work and timeframes.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Programming is no more a creative field than other branches of engineering or the sciences--and in fact many white collar professional jobs. The sort of exceptionalism that gets attached to software is pretty ridiculous. And yes there are agencies and consultants for all sorts of specialized work on a project basis. But that's not the majority of software and I'd guess the majority of programmers/software engineers don't want to be constantly looking for work especially if demand lets up. Obviously, some things like games lend themselves to more of a project-based approach to staffing than other things do. (And certain other engineering projects do as well.)
lapcat 4y ago
> Going straight to full employment is like going from strangers to marriage Not when employment is at-will. It's more like going from one date or few dates (depending on the length of the "interview process") to an exclusive relationship, which happens all the time. And non-marriage relationships are also at-will, so they can end quickly if necessary.
motive 4y ago
I agree with you but sadly this model isn't viable in the U.S. due to healthcare and employment being tied together.
- drawkbox 4y ago
  After I went more free style I got my own insurance. Then I usually do not go with any employee health plan, it changes yearly anyways and adds friction to changing jobs/contracts. If more people did this we could solve this. It does suck that when you are on your own you have to either join a group or be rated at the individual/family level. If we fixed grouping in health insurance this would be much better. Grouping like how Medicare does it across all private insurance would be much better. The great thing about not taking work insurance is no extra cost, can easily go from contract to contract or full time for a while, and with your own company it can be expensed. The only downside is the part work would pay for, however you don't get any say in the type of insurance or what companies. You can ask for a small bump in pay to help cover it. Companies would prefer not to have to deal with health insurance as it is a competitive weight in the US. Private insurance and public options, both separated from the employer is the way to go. We don't get our home/auto/life insurance from work, why do we get the most personal type of insurance, health, from employers. Not only that healthcare bound to the job leads to all sorts of problems, ageism, harder to change jobs, harder to compete with other countries and more. If developers starting doing this more, we alone could change the legacy employer/healthcare coupled system.

ghaff 4y ago

>Most jobs are like that anyways The difference is in the presumed defaults. If you hire me, my assumption is that outside of company/organizational problems/changed of some sort, you'll keep me around so long as I'm reasonably competent. Contract to hire on the other hand , sends off a vibe of we'll probably hire you if you wow us. Which, if someone already has a job or has other good offers in hand, is not going to sound like a great deal unless it's a company/position they really want and are very confident they can do.

drawkbox 4y ago
> sends off a vibe of we'll probably hire you if you wow us Same with interviewing/take-home/whiteboard. It is just a better realistic view of the company. It not only makes it a "wow us" for the worker to the workplace, it is also the workplace to the worker. It is a two way street with a more realistic sample. It also reduces the friction of locked in employment. Creative/programming/product/design are all creative fields, most projects/products like that have more flex/contractor style arrangements based on projects/products not necessarily the company such as movies, music, books, etc. Most of my career has been in games/interactive/agency style projects/products so it may make more sense there. You can't judge creativity and product shipping capabilities with a take-home/whiteboard/interview very well. The sample is much smaller. The better way is the body of work and a real test that is longer or closer to the actual work and timeframes.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Programming is no more a creative field than other branches of engineering or the sciences--and in fact many white collar professional jobs. The sort of exceptionalism that gets attached to software is pretty ridiculous. And yes there are agencies and consultants for all sorts of specialized work on a project basis. But that's not the majority of software and I'd guess the majority of programmers/software engineers don't want to be constantly looking for work especially if demand lets up. Obviously, some things like games lend themselves to more of a project-based approach to staffing than other things do. (And certain other engineering projects do as well.)

lapcat 4y ago

> Going straight to full employment is like going from strangers to marriage Not when employment is at-will. It's more like going from one date or few dates (depending on the length of the "interview process") to an exclusive relationship, which happens all the time. And non-marriage relationships are also at-will, so they can end quickly if necessary.

motive 4y ago

I agree with you but sadly this model isn't viable in the U.S. due to healthcare and employment being tied together.

drawkbox 4y ago
After I went more free style I got my own insurance. Then I usually do not go with any employee health plan, it changes yearly anyways and adds friction to changing jobs/contracts. If more people did this we could solve this. It does suck that when you are on your own you have to either join a group or be rated at the individual/family level. If we fixed grouping in health insurance this would be much better. Grouping like how Medicare does it across all private insurance would be much better. The great thing about not taking work insurance is no extra cost, can easily go from contract to contract or full time for a while, and with your own company it can be expensed. The only downside is the part work would pay for, however you don't get any say in the type of insurance or what companies. You can ask for a small bump in pay to help cover it. Companies would prefer not to have to deal with health insurance as it is a competitive weight in the US. Private insurance and public options, both separated from the employer is the way to go. We don't get our home/auto/life insurance from work, why do we get the most personal type of insurance, health, from employers. Not only that healthcare bound to the job leads to all sorts of problems, ageism, harder to change jobs, harder to compete with other countries and more. If developers starting doing this more, we alone could change the legacy employer/healthcare coupled system.