3 ms·
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
by 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 agoApart 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.