5 ms·

> We have a probation period to work out if they’ve over-promised I'm curious what you mean by over-promised? Unless you only do this for people who don't alr

by gabeio 4y ago

> We have a probation period to work out if they’ve over-promised I'm curious what you mean by over-promised? Unless you only do this for people who don't already have a job, this sounds more toxic than multiple interviews. "Oh yeah we want you to work for us, but quit your old company, we'll try you out for a few weeks and if not we'll go our separate ways" ... but they quit their previous company so it's not as nice as it sounds.

white_dragon88 4y ago
[dead]
PebblesHD 4y ago
Valid question. By that I mean if were looking for someone with experience in X, Y, and Z, we’ve had situations where applicants have done enough research to have a conversation about X but not have any practical or troubleshooting experience with it, which we needed. The probation period means we don’t need to grill someone on every aspect of the role, instead we can focus on the absolute core of what we need and specify the rest in the JD, and if someone claims to know it we can safely take their word with minimal risk of committing ourselves if they can’t then pick it up in a few weeks.
citizenkeen 4y ago
If they said in the interview they’re very comfortable with Vue.js and Postgres, and then you find out after a few weeks that actually they barely know Vue or Postgres, they actually come from a React/SQLite background, they’ve overpromised. Rather than ensuring every bullet point on their resume is factual through six interviews I’ve found it’s better to assume they’re honest and as capable as advertised, interview for personality, and then if they’ve oversold themselves that’s why it’s called a 90 probationary period. I don’t get cranky if someone quits (even with no notice) within 90 days, for any reason. And I’ll let someone go within 90 days, for any (legal, ethical) reason.
- nomel 4y ago
  > And I’ll let someone go within 90 days, for any (legal, ethical) reason. I think it's a cultural difference. Many companies see firing as a failure to competently hire. Many employees see firing as a sign of instability. In the few startups I've worked at, I saw top talent leave at the first sign of instability/layoffs.
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  I agree with the other poster. The possibility of ending up unemployed is a bit stressful here. What percentage of people get let go within 90 days?
  - PebblesHD 4y ago
    For us, it’s a tiny fraction. I’ve hired around 30 engineers over 5 years and we’ve let go of 2 during probation, both for dramatically overstating their capabilities compared to their actual experience, to such a degree that it was clear it was done intentionally and with no effort to try and bridge the gap with learning during the period. Others who may have slightly embellished their skills but could learn as they went turned out fantastically, and I feel like those sorts of hires would not make it through the multi-round grillings satirised in the article.
    - nuclearnice1 4y ago
      That number might be low enough that there is no need to emphasize the probation period to candidates. If 20% of candidates are getting cut after the probation, I’m very hesitant. Losing 5% quickly is only slightly above normal and may, in fact, be a positive sign of quality control.
      - freddie_mercury 4y ago
        The poster is in Australia which has a different set of employment practices than America. Every company in Australia talks about the probation period. During probation it is basically like America at-will employment. After probation it is harder to get rid of staff with legal standards on dismissal periods, redundancy pay, and so on. They can take you the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal claim so companies have have processes in place to make sure they don't face that risk, which includes things like written warnings for underperformance, setting clear expectations, and giving the employee a chance to correct underperformance. Managers in Australia much prefer to rid of underperformers during probation.
cgio 4y ago
I’ll side with you. I lead a big team, but also an employee myself, I find probation period a very uncomfortable concept. There is no promises in interviews. You ask your questions, you get your answers, you make your decisions. If your questions ask for promises to make your decision easier, you are doing it wrong. From my perspective, any hire that ends up with negative probation outcome should be marked against interviewers performance. We are people, working with people with families, obligations, dreams. We have to let that sink in our thinking rather than take cover behind corporate policies, procedures, legislation etc.
- PebblesHD 4y ago
  I can absolutely see this position, for me it’s more a case of protecting ourselves against the rare but increasing occasions of candidates actually making misleading claims. As I’ve said in a sibling comment, for me I like to be able to take basic skills at face value, and focus on core competencies. If someone can learn the skill during probation, that’s totally fine.
  - HomeDeLaPot 4y ago
    To me it seems simpler to just let someone go if they're not working out after 90 days; no need to tell every new hire that they're "on probation".
    - cgio 4y ago
      To be fair to the original poster, in Australia, whether you tell every new hire or not, they are still on probation legally in terms of employer obligations, so it is good to tell if you want to establish clarity, and follow appropriate procedures in terms of setting goals and keeping them up to date as end of probation nears to avoid vagueness and stress. Depending on size of hiring organisation, probation is 6 months for big organisations and 12 months for smaller ones.
      - freddie_mercury 4y ago
        Yeah clearly there are a ton of Americans responding to that point. It is funny they don't want to call it "probation" because Australian probation is just every job in America.
charlieyu1 4y ago
But is it better than the alternative, that’s the current system of multi-round interview that takes months because companies try to avoid a wrong decision?
- ipaddr 4y ago
  If I was unemployed yes but if employed you are taking a big risk.
willio58 4y ago
I’ve hired developers who ended up lacking experience in something that they claimed they had experience in, but they hunkered down and quickly learned the technology. That’s fine. honestly, I’d say that if you don’t slightly exaggerate experience in interviews you’re doing them wrong. It’s when someone outright lies and then fails to actually learn what they’ve said they know that’s the problem.
boondaburrah 4y ago
As another datapoint, this is also pretty standard in Japan. However Japan's school-to-salaryman hiring pipeline is built around the idea that you're not changing jobs, and after the 3-month probationary period (though it can vary by company) you basically become unfireable and are expected to be at that company for life. In the more western culture of recognising that company loyalty is severed both ways, a probationary period makes much less sense.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > In the more western culture of recognising that company loyalty is severed both ways, a probationary period makes much less sense. American, not Western. Probationary periods are the norm in Western(or developed for that matter) countries, same as worker rights (such as you can't be fired on a whim). Due to said worker protections, a probationary period gives the company some time to realise it made a mistake in hiring, because afterwards it's drastically harder to let someone go. Same goes for the employee, during the probationary period you can leave with little to no notice, but once it's over the mandatory notice is in the multiple weeks to months period (at my last job it was the max for France, 3 months).

by gabeio 4y ago

white_dragon88 4y ago

[dead]

PebblesHD 4y ago

Valid question. By that I mean if were looking for someone with experience in X, Y, and Z, we’ve had situations where applicants have done enough research to have a conversation about X but not have any practical or troubleshooting experience with it, which we needed. The probation period means we don’t need to grill someone on every aspect of the role, instead we can focus on the absolute core of what we need and specify the rest in the JD, and if someone claims to know it we can safely take their word with minimal risk of committing ourselves if they can’t then pick it up in a few weeks.

citizenkeen 4y ago

If they said in the interview they’re very comfortable with Vue.js and Postgres, and then you find out after a few weeks that actually they barely know Vue or Postgres, they actually come from a React/SQLite background, they’ve overpromised. Rather than ensuring every bullet point on their resume is factual through six interviews I’ve found it’s better to assume they’re honest and as capable as advertised, interview for personality, and then if they’ve oversold themselves that’s why it’s called a 90 probationary period. I don’t get cranky if someone quits (even with no notice) within 90 days, for any reason. And I’ll let someone go within 90 days, for any (legal, ethical) reason.

nomel 4y ago
> And I’ll let someone go within 90 days, for any (legal, ethical) reason. I think it's a cultural difference. Many companies see firing as a failure to competently hire. Many employees see firing as a sign of instability. In the few startups I've worked at, I saw top talent leave at the first sign of instability/layoffs.
nuclearnice1 4y ago
I agree with the other poster. The possibility of ending up unemployed is a bit stressful here. What percentage of people get let go within 90 days?
- PebblesHD 4y ago
  For us, it’s a tiny fraction. I’ve hired around 30 engineers over 5 years and we’ve let go of 2 during probation, both for dramatically overstating their capabilities compared to their actual experience, to such a degree that it was clear it was done intentionally and with no effort to try and bridge the gap with learning during the period. Others who may have slightly embellished their skills but could learn as they went turned out fantastically, and I feel like those sorts of hires would not make it through the multi-round grillings satirised in the article.
  - nuclearnice1 4y ago
    That number might be low enough that there is no need to emphasize the probation period to candidates. If 20% of candidates are getting cut after the probation, I’m very hesitant. Losing 5% quickly is only slightly above normal and may, in fact, be a positive sign of quality control.
    - freddie_mercury 4y ago
      The poster is in Australia which has a different set of employment practices than America. Every company in Australia talks about the probation period. During probation it is basically like America at-will employment. After probation it is harder to get rid of staff with legal standards on dismissal periods, redundancy pay, and so on. They can take you the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal claim so companies have have processes in place to make sure they don't face that risk, which includes things like written warnings for underperformance, setting clear expectations, and giving the employee a chance to correct underperformance. Managers in Australia much prefer to rid of underperformers during probation.

cgio 4y ago

I’ll side with you. I lead a big team, but also an employee myself, I find probation period a very uncomfortable concept. There is no promises in interviews. You ask your questions, you get your answers, you make your decisions. If your questions ask for promises to make your decision easier, you are doing it wrong. From my perspective, any hire that ends up with negative probation outcome should be marked against interviewers performance. We are people, working with people with families, obligations, dreams. We have to let that sink in our thinking rather than take cover behind corporate policies, procedures, legislation etc.

PebblesHD 4y ago
I can absolutely see this position, for me it’s more a case of protecting ourselves against the rare but increasing occasions of candidates actually making misleading claims. As I’ve said in a sibling comment, for me I like to be able to take basic skills at face value, and focus on core competencies. If someone can learn the skill during probation, that’s totally fine.
- HomeDeLaPot 4y ago
  To me it seems simpler to just let someone go if they're not working out after 90 days; no need to tell every new hire that they're "on probation".
  - cgio 4y ago
    To be fair to the original poster, in Australia, whether you tell every new hire or not, they are still on probation legally in terms of employer obligations, so it is good to tell if you want to establish clarity, and follow appropriate procedures in terms of setting goals and keeping them up to date as end of probation nears to avoid vagueness and stress. Depending on size of hiring organisation, probation is 6 months for big organisations and 12 months for smaller ones.
    - freddie_mercury 4y ago
      Yeah clearly there are a ton of Americans responding to that point. It is funny they don't want to call it "probation" because Australian probation is just every job in America.

charlieyu1 4y ago

But is it better than the alternative, that’s the current system of multi-round interview that takes months because companies try to avoid a wrong decision?

ipaddr 4y ago
If I was unemployed yes but if employed you are taking a big risk.

willio58 4y ago

I’ve hired developers who ended up lacking experience in something that they claimed they had experience in, but they hunkered down and quickly learned the technology. That’s fine. honestly, I’d say that if you don’t slightly exaggerate experience in interviews you’re doing them wrong. It’s when someone outright lies and then fails to actually learn what they’ve said they know that’s the problem.

boondaburrah 4y ago

As another datapoint, this is also pretty standard in Japan. However Japan's school-to-salaryman hiring pipeline is built around the idea that you're not changing jobs, and after the 3-month probationary period (though it can vary by company) you basically become unfireable and are expected to be at that company for life. In the more western culture of recognising that company loyalty is severed both ways, a probationary period makes much less sense.

sofixa 4y ago
> In the more western culture of recognising that company loyalty is severed both ways, a probationary period makes much less sense. American, not Western. Probationary periods are the norm in Western(or developed for that matter) countries, same as worker rights (such as you can't be fired on a whim). Due to said worker protections, a probationary period gives the company some time to realise it made a mistake in hiring, because afterwards it's drastically harder to let someone go. Same goes for the employee, during the probationary period you can leave with little to no notice, but once it's over the mandatory notice is in the multiple weeks to months period (at my last job it was the max for France, 3 months).