4 ms·

Candidate would be compensated, obviously. That's why it's expensive. You don't need him to become efficient. Also I don't think it is always necessary to have

Candidate would be compensated, obviously. That's why it's expensive. You don't need him to become efficient. Also I don't think it is always necessary to have such long onboarding. I'll never understand why a new hire (at least in senior position) can't start contributing after a week.

michpoch 2y ago
> can't start contributing after a week. Because you have zero context of what the org is working on.
michpoch 2y ago
> Candidate would be compensated, obviously. That's why it's expensive Ok... take me through it. I apply to your company and after a short call you offer me to spend 4 weeks working at your place instead of an interview. I go back to my employer, give them resignation letter, work the rest of my notice period (2 months - 3 months), working on all handovers, saying goodbyes. Unless the idea is to compensate me for the risk (I guess at least 6 months salary, probably more), then I do not see how you'd get anyone who is just a poor candidate to sign up for this. > You don't need him to become efficient So what will you see? Efficiency, being independent and being a good team player are the main things that are difficult to test during a regular interview.
askonomm 2y ago
And so that self-selects for people who already are unemployed then, right? Most developers I know (including myself) look for a new job while still having a job, as to not create a financial hole in-between. I'd be curious if that doesn't then end up with lower quality candidates who ended up unemployed to begin with?
- jakubmazanec 2y ago
  > self-selects for people who already are unemployed then You can say that about all forms of hiring process. If you're unemployed, you obviously have more time: to spend more time on the take-home assignments (which I hate, see another thread [1]), to add more stuff to your GitHub profile, to go to more interviews, etc. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40200397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40200397
  - michpoch 2y ago
    > You can say that about all forms of hiring process Yes, but there's a significant difference between spending a few hours on a take-home assignment and dropping your current employment to spend 4 weeks potentially in another city working full time.
    - jakubmazanec 2y ago
      Well, I didn't say it was super practical approach, only that it has the best predictive validity :D
- noirbot 2y ago
  And, additionally, it encourages your candidates to still be interviewing while they're on their probationary period with you, since they may be back to unemployed after 4 weeks or whatever. Which creates even more potential issues if they get a much better offer while they're onboarding with you.
noirbot 2y ago
I'd argue the bigger expense is on the team having to onboard what could potentially be a revolving door of temporary hires. Getting a new engineer to the point where they understand how things work and the specific weirdness of the company and its patterns is a pretty big effort at anywhere I've worked.

michpoch 2y ago

> can't start contributing after a week. Because you have zero context of what the org is working on.

michpoch 2y ago

> Candidate would be compensated, obviously. That's why it's expensive Ok... take me through it. I apply to your company and after a short call you offer me to spend 4 weeks working at your place instead of an interview. I go back to my employer, give them resignation letter, work the rest of my notice period (2 months - 3 months), working on all handovers, saying goodbyes. Unless the idea is to compensate me for the risk (I guess at least 6 months salary, probably more), then I do not see how you'd get anyone who is just a poor candidate to sign up for this. > You don't need him to become efficient So what will you see? Efficiency, being independent and being a good team player are the main things that are difficult to test during a regular interview.

askonomm 2y ago

And so that self-selects for people who already are unemployed then, right? Most developers I know (including myself) look for a new job while still having a job, as to not create a financial hole in-between. I'd be curious if that doesn't then end up with lower quality candidates who ended up unemployed to begin with?

jakubmazanec 2y ago
> self-selects for people who already are unemployed then You can say that about all forms of hiring process. If you're unemployed, you obviously have more time: to spend more time on the take-home assignments (which I hate, see another thread [1]), to add more stuff to your GitHub profile, to go to more interviews, etc. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40200397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40200397
- michpoch 2y ago
  > You can say that about all forms of hiring process Yes, but there's a significant difference between spending a few hours on a take-home assignment and dropping your current employment to spend 4 weeks potentially in another city working full time.
  - jakubmazanec 2y ago
    Well, I didn't say it was super practical approach, only that it has the best predictive validity :D
noirbot 2y ago
And, additionally, it encourages your candidates to still be interviewing while they're on their probationary period with you, since they may be back to unemployed after 4 weeks or whatever. Which creates even more potential issues if they get a much better offer while they're onboarding with you.

noirbot 2y ago

I'd argue the bigger expense is on the team having to onboard what could potentially be a revolving door of temporary hires. Getting a new engineer to the point where they understand how things work and the specific weirdness of the company and its patterns is a pretty big effort at anywhere I've worked.