3 ms·
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 are
by 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 agodisclaimer: 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 agoThe 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.