This is taking interviewing and hiring in the wrong direction. At my company, we have a relatively short interview process, followed by a 3 month full salary probation period.
The interview is used to weed out "red flaggers" and identify high-level strengths and weaknesses. It is completely non-technical. We assume that the person applying for the job has the technical requirements. (We also make judicious use of references, something people seem to have forgotten about. Quick phone call to previous employers can save you tons of money!)
The 3 month probation period is the real "test" and the applicant will be put on a small project with another employee mentoring. If someone lacks technical ability, it will be evident in the first few days and we can move on to the next applicant. If the person doesn't like the work environment, they can walk away no questions asked (maybe the commute is too long or they don't like the office space, etc. etc.).
This is cheaper than having directors and executives try to plan around all sorts of interview stages. It is much less stressful, as the applicant, once into the probation period, is treated like a regular employee and has much more opportunity to "prove their worth". Stop adding more shit to the interview! Don't make it longer, do the opposite!
The big problem with this is that I wouldn't leave my current job for a 3 month contract that may or may not pan out. If I'm currently unemployed, then I might take this risk, but there are other companies who will do the work up front to decide whether I'm a good fit (and them for me), and once I accept the offer, I'm employed for the foreseeable future. The 3 month probation period (or even a 2 week contract, as others suggest) just won't work with senior candidates like me who already have jobs and might just be looking for better opportunities.
This applies even if you aren't leaving an old job. If I'm on the job search, and I get an offer for 3 month probation, they are effectively asking me to end my job search for a chance. If the job doesn't pan out (for any reason, not just that I was a bad coder or something), you can't put 3 months on a resume, so I would have effectively been unemployed for 3 months, on top of however long prior to the probation.
Just call it a short-term contract, which it was. Or just say you weren't working for 3 months. If someone has a problem with that, I wouldn't want to work for them in the first place.
Since employment is almost always at-will, how is this any different from an employer hiring someone full time and laying them off after 3 months? It short enough so you wouldn't qualify for unemployment in most (all?) states.
It's really a matter of defaults. If you hire someone full-time and they're even just more or less average in their role (to your way of thinking), you're probably not going to fire them after 3 months just because they're not the very best hire who has come down the road in the last year. On the other hand, if you offer someone a 3-month try-out and they're "just" solidly competent but they don't really wow you, you may well decide not to extend a full-time position.
I would think that if you are confident that you're qualified for the job then you shouldn't need to worry about any probation period.
Job security between the two is an illusion. It doesn't matter if you're contract or full-time. You can lose one just as easily as you can lose the other.
No, that's not true. A full-time offer is a commitment to full-time employment. A three-month trial period is an overt refusal to offer that commitment.
Software firms can be ruthless about at-will employment, but they can't do that while retaining staff and recruiting new staff effectively. Companies that are ruthless about at-will employment are ostracized, which is why that kind of ruthlessness is rare in the industry.
> but they can't do that while retaining staff and recruiting new staff effectively
I wish I had a better way to ask this, but... can you actually provide any evidence this is true? It is directly counter to my ~10 years of experience, and I've seen it at many companies that are home-run-level successful (i.e. there's no way one could qualify them as having trouble recruiting). I'm not sure I could name even one company that is "ostracized" for their hiring practices.
The only way that I can reconcile this theory with my experience is if I take the maximally extreme definition of "ruthless" ... something like firing someone in their first week after enticing them to leave a job and move across country. That, of course, will get you a bad reputation quickly. But I personally have not seen measurable negative consequences for firing alleged low performers for little to no reason within a 2-3 month period.
I would be curious (and pleased) to hear if this is just an unusual sample of experiences I've had.
Edit: let me clarify that when I say "I haven't seen measurable negative consequences" I don't mean that I have done that to anybody. But it has happened to upwards of 10 people I know.
Probably not. There's a "fire-fast" culture that is probably abused more than applied properly. Again, my objection to "trial period" is that it's an overt refusal to make a commitment to a candidate; at the end of a trial period, you can be released for all the same reasons as you could be at an interview: poor culture fit, lack of "passion", &c.
Do unscrupulous companies fire for culture fit? I'm sure there are lots that do; I wish I knew more about which ones they were.
I'm not sure that's true. (I don't disagree, I'm just not sure.)
I think an employer might be more willing to take a risk on a candidate they're not sure of if it's only for a few weeks. "Well, we're 50/50 on this guy, so let's bring him in for 2 weeks and see how it goes." On the other hand, if it's a permanent hire right off the bat, they'll want to be a fair bit better than just 50/50.
Answers to this would be all over the map, but I'm going with "no."
If I/we make a job offer to someone, it's because we think you're a good fit and you will be productive. Bringing someone in for 2 weeks, then someone else in for a month, then another guy for 2 months wastes even more time than just interviewing them each for half a day. Not to mention the uncertainty and morale effects on the rest of the team.
At least in California, you can be fired at any time for any reason. You are essentially on contract whether you know it or not. So whether it's 3 month or 1 year, it really doesn't matter. What matters is if you want to have the job, and if you're qualified for it.
I think it's better if there's a new hire that isn't working out, to just give them some severance pay and fire them quickly. Obviously you should be hiring with good intentions and believe that they will do well after due diligence, so 50/50 isn't a good probability to hire someone, it just causes a lot of disruption and lot of bad will.
Virtually every state in the country is at-will, which is a good thing. But the norms of this industry put the onus on the employer to (a) verify that candidates can execute before extending offers to them and (b) demonstrate conclusively that the fault is with the employee before terminating.
A trial period essentially tells candidates "your first three months on this job are a kind of extended interview". People are rejected after interviews based on standards of evidence far, far lower than the ones commonly used to terminate employees.
I'm fine with employers hiring in good faith, and then firing within a few months if the candidate isn't a good fit. It's far more efficient and easier for everyone that way, instead of dragging down the team, creating a burden on others, etc.
Why would I ever accept a job at a company who treated the first 3 months of my employment as an extended interview, after which I could be released without penalty?
When a software accepts a full-time position, they are taking a mammoth pay cut from what they could make 1099 contracting. They do that because the full-time position comes with a commitment to continued employment, so even though they could be making 2x-3x more per day consulting, they don't have to hustle to keep their utilization up.
The "3 month probation" thing is essentially a temp-to-perm contacting position. Do you pay people 2x-3x more during that period?
> The "3 month probation" thing is essentially a temp-to-perm contacting position. Do you pay people 2x-3x more during that period?
What about paying people the 2x-3x more in the event you decide not to keep the hire? Then the mechanism becomes a 3-month option to make the job either full time or a fairly compensated contract.
> What about paying people the 2x-3x more in the event you decide not to keep the hire?
This could be pretty easily abused, since it doesn't sound hard to get through the door if they are assuming you're qualified technically. So all you have to do is know just enough to fake it a little bit, then coast for as long as you can to get a big payout at the end.
If you're running easy-in, fast-fire, then you should pay 2x-3x continuously during the trial period, just like you would to a freelance consultant doing the same work.
But if you're running a real hiring process with accuracy as a goal, as you probably should be, then the 2x-3x payout at the end of the trial program at least fixes some of the incentive problems, and, if you're running that program in good faith, you're doing it because you expect most people you extend offers to will pan out --- so you'll rarely pay that bonus.
Agree completely. And I wouldn't leave my currently solid job, as much as I might dislike it, for a 3 month contract-to-hire position. That's insanity.
I tried to design a similar system that moved the yearly bonus for the first year into a non-contingent bonus at the 6 month period. So regardless of whether you left, we fired you, or you stayed, you got your bonus at the 6 month timeframe.
What I find interesting is that so many tech companies (maybe not just tech) seem to approach employing people from a negative standpoint. Everything is aimed at "weeding people out"...it's almost like the default assumption is that candidates won't be suitable for a position.
> they are taking a mammoth pay cut from what they could make 1099 contracting. They do that because the full-time position comes with a commitment to continued employment,
Sounds like it's a convert attempt at cutting down on contracting rates.
In France there's a 4 month probation period extensible to up to 7 months. It's too long, 7 months makes very little sense, and some companies abuse it. Basically you can pretty much fire at will during this probation period, but after it's _really_ hard to fire under French employment laws. If you're in a field where it's hard to land a job, it's 7 months of butt clenching.
I've worked in a company where I've been let go after 2 months in the probation period, but it was clear I wasn't a good fit with the company culture. This is what the probation period is for, we didn't need 7 months to figure that out. On the other hand, I worked for a consulting company that automatically extended all the probation periods, and laid off people that were on probation if they didn't have enough consulting contracts to feed everybody on the payroll (and then reshuffle contracts among people post-probation that were unfireable).
In Germany we got 6 months. You can get fired faster in this time (2 weeks) but you can also leave faster. I saw employees and employers use this a few times.
The probationary periods in France and Germany address a different public policy issue than the trial period we're discussing here. After the probationary period in France expires, it is legally much more difficult to terminate an employee.
That need does't exist in the US, where employees can be terminated without cause.
Nobody mentioned senior candidates. Not the linked site or the parent you're replying to. Yes, you may want to have a different hiring practice for the few senior members of your team. You may also want to have a different hiring practice for the CTO. Nobody is suggesting these positions are equivalent and should have equivalent hiring practices.
> Are they committed to my company and the job or not?
What have you done for them besides offering a rosy mission/vision statement that may or may not end up being a bad joke like a lot of rosy mission/vision statements out there?
Just because you have chosen to call yourself an founder does not compel the Magic Fairy of Labor to provide an endless pool of fans that will throw themselves between yourself and a bullet every time the "needs" of the company demand it.
> Are they committed to my company and the job or not?
Unless they are heavily (to the point it provides the overwhelming majority of their material support) invested -- in equity terms -- in your company, why should they be committed to it? Certainly, someone holding -- much less seeking -- at-will employment has little rational reason to be particularly committed to the company, as the company has made relatively little commitment to them (essentially, none beyond paying them for work already done, and not dismissing them for any legally-prohibited reason.)
> Quick phone call to previous employers can save you tons of money!
That may be really dangerous for the ex-employer. I'd never comment on an ex-employee beyond confirming that he worked on the given dates.
> This is cheaper than having directors and executives try to plan around all sorts of interview stages.
From my experience, in the first 3-6 month you invest a whole lot in the new employee. He or she is very far from 100% productive and you also need to assign someone for mentoring which also takes company resources. Bad hires are really expensive.
In my previous company I was involved a lot in hiring. After CV screening we normally did a 1-2 hour interview (both technical and non-technical) which was (in a positive case) follow by an offer to spend one day working with us. Finally, a permanent contract with 6 month probation time (standard practice in Germany). We had very high success rate. No bad hires on my memory, low fluctuation, very high employee loyality. The company has stellar employee feedback on kununu.com.
The downside was that many applicants were really discouraged by our hiring process. Some people were outraged by the fact that they had to actually write code on the interview. Some thought we the purpose of the probation day was to make the work for free. But that's OK, we've found a lot of great people anyway.
Now I'm working for a huge corporation. I'm normally not involved in interviews for permanent positions but I'm always interviewing when staffing external developers my projects. (We staff developers mainly externally.) It's normally 1-hour interview, again both technical as well as non-technical.
In any case I can't imagine hiring on the basis of a non-technical interview. Bad hires are just way too expensive.
If you are in the US, what is the difference between the "3 month probation period" and the rest of their employment, since you can fire them at any time anyways?
There's effectively no difference, but the general understanding (with some exceptions, e.g., Netflix) is that hiring someone full-time involves a commitment on behalf of both sides to do what's possible to make it work. If there are issues, the employer and employee will try to fix them. With a probationary period that explicitly involves a determination on a longer-term relationship, that's not a given. At least, that's my understanding, and others may correct me.
Why do you except Netflix here? I'm not familiar with anything unusual about their hiring, and a couple of quick searches didn't turn up anything. Has their hiring been on HN previously?
I assume that he's referring to some of the pieces that have been written about Netflix practices such as lack of performance improvement plans. If someone isn't working out for whatever reason--maybe the job requirements have changed--let them go rather than stringing things along. I'm not sure that's inconsistent with trying to make things work though, just not trying to make things work out when you know how the story will end. https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr
I believe PIPs exist to both measure the employee's performance and provide documentation to fire the employee. PIPs exist solely for legal reasons -- it protects the employer from being liable for an unjust firing. I'd be interested to see stats around how many times a PIP turned around and improved the employee.
>Quick phone call to previous employers can save you tons of money
Not sure about that - I thought that most companies these days will confirm the dates of past employment and nothing else (for fear of lawsuits).
Also, anyone who submits references will make sure that they (the references) speak highly of the job-seeker, even if s/he is a total flake.
So I have to relocate or stay away from my family for 3 months for some coding job. wtf. And everyday is an "interview" for 3 months where my every move will watched and analyzed?
What a strange and disrespectful way to treat people.
I imagine you don't have a lot of H1B hires. I'm on one and I wouldn't even consider interviewing at a company that did a trial period. It's just too much risk.
Consulting works a lot like this. Talking with new clients, they ask if I can do something. I say sure, and by when. If it works, we agree on billing rate. Initial projects are almost always small. Unless they're desperate. If they like what I've done, and are OK about the cost, they come back.
I like the sound of this. As well as giving the candidate ample opportunity to show what they can do, it'll also be representative of the actual work they'll be doing in that role so everyone will be going into the post-probation period with eyes wide open.
What's wrong with adding a short online programming test at the start of the interview process to weed out clearly unsuitable candidates? Interviews take up a lot of time.
The 3 month probation method may work with large and stable companies but for a startup, keeping a bad programmer for 3 months will be highly toxic and can actually kill the company.
A bad hire will drain financial resources yet contribute little to success of the product/company. If a company has a good financial cushion, then you are right that a hiring mistake will not be catastrophic. However if a company is struggling financially then it can be.
Well that's the great thing about it being probationary! You don't have to keep them for the whole period, if you realize they aren't a fit in the first week, you can move on.
You make good points. For top talent, it's much less stressful and uncertain and more likely to result in gain to just continue working on and publishing one's own products than to deal with the mess of precious entitled thinking that dominates the interviewing and hiring process of the contemporary corporate scene.
The interview is used to weed out "red flaggers" and identify high-level strengths and weaknesses. It is completely non-technical. We assume that the person applying for the job has the technical requirements. (We also make judicious use of references, something people seem to have forgotten about. Quick phone call to previous employers can save you tons of money!)
The 3 month probation period is the real "test" and the applicant will be put on a small project with another employee mentoring. If someone lacks technical ability, it will be evident in the first few days and we can move on to the next applicant. If the person doesn't like the work environment, they can walk away no questions asked (maybe the commute is too long or they don't like the office space, etc. etc.).
This is cheaper than having directors and executives try to plan around all sorts of interview stages. It is much less stressful, as the applicant, once into the probation period, is treated like a regular employee and has much more opportunity to "prove their worth". Stop adding more shit to the interview! Don't make it longer, do the opposite!