4 ms·

I guess I do not see how you can lose if you take the contract-to-hire approach I agree with most of what you said, but one way you can lose if you insist on c

by 300bps 13y ago

I guess I do not see how you can lose if you take the contract-to-hire approach I agree with most of what you said, but one way you can lose if you insist on contract-to-hire is that you are filtering out a portion of the highest quality candidates who are only interested in immediate full time hiring.

tocomment 13y ago
I don't think many candidates are interested in "immediate" hiring. Most people I know need to take extra time to wait for other offers to come in. It also gives the candidate a way to see what kind of problems he'd be working with, and the quality of the code-base, working conditions, etc. I think it's a win-win.
- TheCoelacanth 13y ago
  It doesn't have to be immediate, but most high quality workers will not be interested in anything that requires them to spend a period of time without a full-time job. So whatever contract work you give them will have to be small enough that they can do it while still working a full-time job, or you will miss out on most of the high quality people.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Well I would want contractor rates >$550 perdiem for this short term contract and via my company so I can reap the tax benefit. Trouble is most employed people will have restrictions on outside work and if its related work the current employer will own that IP.
- jaegerpicker 13y ago
  Nearly all of the high quality developers I know aren't interested in contract-to-hire, I know I'm not at all. To many things can go wrong in a short contract window, and regardless of the reality, most immediate hires feel they have a much stronger connection to the employer.
- btilly 13y ago
  Many candidates with current jobs that they would like to leave are only interested in immediate hiring. They do not have the luxury to take several days off of their existing job for a tiny contract which might or might not land them a job that they might or might not prove to want. One size definitely does not fit all here.
- jlarocco 13y ago
  I recently switch jobs and can say with certainty I had no interest in contracting or contract-to-hire positions. Quitting a full time job for a new position is a big commitment on my part, and I'd like a big commitment on the other side of the table. Not to mention contracting gigs don't usually have insurance, vacation, or other benefits. If it means a more rigorous interview that's okay with me.
- tocomment 13y ago
  All of you guys are imagining some sort of 6 month junky contract to hire situation. All I'm talking about is a 3-10 day contract like the article mentions. An unemployed candidate can do a contract like that while evaluating other jobs and possibly waiting for other offers to come in. An employed candidate can do the work in off-hours.
VladRussian2 13y ago
>filtering out a portion of the highest quality candidates if you're not able to easily spot such a candidate without attempting to make him/her to jump through the gimmicks (brainteasers, contract-to-hire, etc..) - well, it indicates the issue with your company and hiring practices in particular are deeper than just what gimmicks to apply.
- chollida1 13y ago
  > if you're not able to easily spot such a candidate without attempting to make him/her to jump through the gimmicks (brainteasers, contract-to-hire, etc..) ell, it indicates the issue with your company and hiring practices in particular are deeper than just what gimmicks to apply. I'm not sure if this is a joke, but I'll bite. The entire problem with hiring is that no-one, I repeat, NO-ONE is capable of determining who are the best candidates. If they could then everyone would the same formula and this would be a solved issue. GOOG and MSFT have tonnes of hiring data and they admit they can't do this very well. It seems very presumptuous of you to assume you can and anyone who can't is somehow an outlier.
ctb_mg 13y ago
Agree with this. There's a definite stigma with contract-to-hire, at least in my group of tech friends. No one desires to be in a contract limbo where they aren't sure if they're going to be hired for real or or if they're doing the job search all over again in a few weeks. Further, as soon as you use contract work to determine hiring criteria -- you've added your management into the mix. Are expectations made clear? Is the person's time managed efficiently? If management fails at any point then it's detrimental to the prospective employee's future, likely not by their own fault.
- misiti3780 13y ago
  disclaimer: i am 1/2 two members of the management team at my company - if it was larger - this could be a problem I agree
- WalterSear 13y ago
  The contract doesn't/shouldn't be for a meaningful amount of work. It should be for the smallest amount of work that will allow you to evaluate the candidate. It doesn't even have to be for 'real' work - it could be a problem that has already been solved, or something that you think could be better but isn't a priority. The point is, there's no reason for it to be a genuine contract position, and every reason for it to be concise enough for them to fit in during their off hours. After all, you are going to have to look at it too :) And they do have the time for it: after all, they are making the time for interviewing.
dangero 13y ago
Good point. Maybe the best approach would be to let the interviewer choose the approach that works best for them. It would be sooo refreshing for a company to present me with interview options that will showcase my skills the best.

by 300bps 13y ago

tocomment 13y ago

I don't think many candidates are interested in "immediate" hiring. Most people I know need to take extra time to wait for other offers to come in. It also gives the candidate a way to see what kind of problems he'd be working with, and the quality of the code-base, working conditions, etc. I think it's a win-win.

TheCoelacanth 13y ago
It doesn't have to be immediate, but most high quality workers will not be interested in anything that requires them to spend a period of time without a full-time job. So whatever contract work you give them will have to be small enough that they can do it while still working a full-time job, or you will miss out on most of the high quality people.
walshemj 13y ago
Well I would want contractor rates >$550 perdiem for this short term contract and via my company so I can reap the tax benefit. Trouble is most employed people will have restrictions on outside work and if its related work the current employer will own that IP.
jaegerpicker 13y ago
Nearly all of the high quality developers I know aren't interested in contract-to-hire, I know I'm not at all. To many things can go wrong in a short contract window, and regardless of the reality, most immediate hires feel they have a much stronger connection to the employer.
btilly 13y ago
Many candidates with current jobs that they would like to leave are only interested in immediate hiring. They do not have the luxury to take several days off of their existing job for a tiny contract which might or might not land them a job that they might or might not prove to want. One size definitely does not fit all here.
jlarocco 13y ago
I recently switch jobs and can say with certainty I had no interest in contracting or contract-to-hire positions. Quitting a full time job for a new position is a big commitment on my part, and I'd like a big commitment on the other side of the table. Not to mention contracting gigs don't usually have insurance, vacation, or other benefits. If it means a more rigorous interview that's okay with me.
tocomment 13y ago
All of you guys are imagining some sort of 6 month junky contract to hire situation. All I'm talking about is a 3-10 day contract like the article mentions. An unemployed candidate can do a contract like that while evaluating other jobs and possibly waiting for other offers to come in. An employed candidate can do the work in off-hours.

VladRussian2 13y ago

>filtering out a portion of the highest quality candidates if you're not able to easily spot such a candidate without attempting to make him/her to jump through the gimmicks (brainteasers, contract-to-hire, etc..) - well, it indicates the issue with your company and hiring practices in particular are deeper than just what gimmicks to apply.

chollida1 13y ago
> if you're not able to easily spot such a candidate without attempting to make him/her to jump through the gimmicks (brainteasers, contract-to-hire, etc..) ell, it indicates the issue with your company and hiring practices in particular are deeper than just what gimmicks to apply. I'm not sure if this is a joke, but I'll bite. The entire problem with hiring is that no-one, I repeat, NO-ONE is capable of determining who are the best candidates. If they could then everyone would the same formula and this would be a solved issue. GOOG and MSFT have tonnes of hiring data and they admit they can't do this very well. It seems very presumptuous of you to assume you can and anyone who can't is somehow an outlier.

ctb_mg 13y ago

Agree with this. There's a definite stigma with contract-to-hire, at least in my group of tech friends. No one desires to be in a contract limbo where they aren't sure if they're going to be hired for real or or if they're doing the job search all over again in a few weeks. Further, as soon as you use contract work to determine hiring criteria -- you've added your management into the mix. Are expectations made clear? Is the person's time managed efficiently? If management fails at any point then it's detrimental to the prospective employee's future, likely not by their own fault.

misiti3780 13y ago
disclaimer: i am 1/2 two members of the management team at my company - if it was larger - this could be a problem I agree
WalterSear 13y ago
The contract doesn't/shouldn't be for a meaningful amount of work. It should be for the smallest amount of work that will allow you to evaluate the candidate. It doesn't even have to be for 'real' work - it could be a problem that has already been solved, or something that you think could be better but isn't a priority. The point is, there's no reason for it to be a genuine contract position, and every reason for it to be concise enough for them to fit in during their off hours. After all, you are going to have to look at it too :) And they do have the time for it: after all, they are making the time for interviewing.

dangero 13y ago

Good point. Maybe the best approach would be to let the interviewer choose the approach that works best for them. It would be sooo refreshing for a company to present me with interview options that will showcase my skills the best.