4 ms·
The unanswered questions at the end are interesting. "This area of thinking started out with the hiring process, and the idea that maybe interviews don’t work
by russell 17y ago
The unanswered questions at the end are interesting.
"This area of thinking started out with the hiring process, and the idea that maybe interviews don’t work at all – there’s a bunch of academic research that implies that, actually. So if how would you build a failure-tolerant system around the hiring process, if you assume that good interview candidates actually have no correlation to successful employees?"
I have been partial to contract to hire. You still have to do interviews, but you have a fallback position.
- aditya 17y agoThe problem with contract to hire is that it sounds great (atleast on paper), for the company but for the employee - most people interviewing take it to mean that the company wasn't super impressed with their interview and wants to test them out, and they could get kicked out at any time. Think about interviewing for a job (not from an entrepreneurial mindset) - what you're looking for is the safety and security of a job and what the company is giving you is a contract position that can be terminated at any time without severance or notice. It is a great idea but there is stigma (possibly unsubstantiated) associated with it.
- lief79 17y agoThere is a strong risk of losing out to anyone offering full time employment. In practice, the full time employment doesn't have much more of a guarantee with it. This is especially true for computer programming and Business Analysts. The normal 3 month span will show you a minimum of competence, but it doesn't show anyone's final working level. The exceptional individuals will still stand out, but most companies don't have that kind of draw or the salaries to focus on them.