4 ms·

"It’s when we hired full time employees immediately without that trial period where I’ve really regretted things. You go through so much extra work to figure ou

by Aloha 13y ago

"It’s when we hired full time employees immediately without that trial period where I’ve really regretted things. You go through so much extra work to figure out insurance and stock plans, only to want to fire the person in a couple months." It's very very hard to get people to move from one contract to another without some sort of permanence, I'm a contractor now, why would I change to another contract even for slightly more pay? I'm content here, more or less, offer me a fulltime job, sure, I'd move - but not for another contract.

tptacek 13y ago
I agree strongly. Contract-to-perm hiring seems like a great way to filter out the best candidates, who will tend to have better options.
- ivankirigin 13y ago
  It's a pretty big issue because you don't really know what working with them will be like. Weebly does a trial week, which is a good balance of time and commitment. http://www.sequoiacap.com/grove/posts/akzj/trial-week-our-hiring-secret http://www.sequoiacap.com/grove/posts/akzj/trial-week-our-hi...
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Aside: let's be careful not to pretend that temp-to-perm hiring is any kind of norm. The overwhelming majority of hires are hired conventionally, after an interview, with an immediate full-time offer. That includes "employee #1" hires.
    - ivankirigin 13y ago
      You're right
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I'm also a crusader on this issue, as you know, so don't let me steamroll the thread.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- gruseom 13y ago
  You've made this point before and it seems like a good one, but it raises a question. If you don't have a trial period, does that not make it harder to correct mistakes? The barrier to quickly firing someone who (perhaps through no fault of their own) turns out to have been a bad choice is surely higher than allowing a trial to expire or whatnot. Since bad hires are one of the worst things that can happen and no one is perfect at hiring, I'm curious what you do about this problem. Do you just work harder at getting closer to perfect? It seems to me that there's always an implicit trial period anyway—the question is how you encode it. The best people, who have many options, won't want to stick around if they made a mistake either, right?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Apart from adverse selection and basic fairness, which I think are the big issues with temp-to-perm hiring, I also don't believe the practice does much to mitigate risk. Think about the kinds of things that demonstrate a teammate's unsuitability for the team; how many of them are consistently apparent in a 1 week sprint? Anyone can be productive for a week. Anyone can avoid teamicidal petulance for a week. Anyone can avoid making catastrophic design choices that won't be apparent until after you ship for... well, &c &c.
jaetzold 13y ago
But if I'm really good i don't have a problem with short-term contracts & trial periods. I will be confident that there will be other good opportunities if the startup turns out to not be a good fit.

by Aloha 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

I agree strongly. Contract-to-perm hiring seems like a great way to filter out the best candidates, who will tend to have better options.

ivankirigin 13y ago
It's a pretty big issue because you don't really know what working with them will be like. Weebly does a trial week, which is a good balance of time and commitment. http://www.sequoiacap.com/grove/posts/akzj/trial-week-our-hiring-secret http://www.sequoiacap.com/grove/posts/akzj/trial-week-our-hi...
- tptacek 13y ago
  Aside: let's be careful not to pretend that temp-to-perm hiring is any kind of norm. The overwhelming majority of hires are hired conventionally, after an interview, with an immediate full-time offer. That includes "employee #1" hires.
  - ivankirigin 13y ago
    You're right
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm also a crusader on this issue, as you know, so don't let me steamroll the thread.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
gruseom 13y ago
You've made this point before and it seems like a good one, but it raises a question. If you don't have a trial period, does that not make it harder to correct mistakes? The barrier to quickly firing someone who (perhaps through no fault of their own) turns out to have been a bad choice is surely higher than allowing a trial to expire or whatnot. Since bad hires are one of the worst things that can happen and no one is perfect at hiring, I'm curious what you do about this problem. Do you just work harder at getting closer to perfect? It seems to me that there's always an implicit trial period anyway—the question is how you encode it. The best people, who have many options, won't want to stick around if they made a mistake either, right?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Apart from adverse selection and basic fairness, which I think are the big issues with temp-to-perm hiring, I also don't believe the practice does much to mitigate risk. Think about the kinds of things that demonstrate a teammate's unsuitability for the team; how many of them are consistently apparent in a 1 week sprint? Anyone can be productive for a week. Anyone can avoid teamicidal petulance for a week. Anyone can avoid making catastrophic design choices that won't be apparent until after you ship for... well, &c &c.

jaetzold 13y ago

But if I'm really good i don't have a problem with short-term contracts & trial periods. I will be confident that there will be other good opportunities if the startup turns out to not be a good fit.