August 19, 2009 at 6:39 am
blandry (8/19/2009)
Our parent company implemented a plan about a year and a half ago where new hires are brought on for a 6 month probation period, during which they are paid as contractors. We are permitted to request the person go from contract to full hire any time within that period if we feel the person has proven their worth to any of our teams. At first I was not comfortable with this plan but in fact, it has worked out very well thus far.In my experience with this plan, the best aspect has less to do with assessing talent, than assessing "good fit" with our existing team. We have had two people who did very well in their interviews, and were brought on board, but they did not last the 6 month probation and in both cases it was because they didn't measure up during crunch-times with our work because they could not gel very well as team players.
I am now a big proponent of this tactic. What I have found frustrating during the latter years of my career is that you can often hire very talented people, but they lack either social or team skills and that makes their talent less valuable. This plan eliminates that threat very nicely and allows us to have a very talented, but equally cohesive staff.
I also think it's a good idea for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I've actually presented it as an alternative to prospective employers in smaller organizations who had an acute short term need (massive performance problems for example) as well as a longer term road-map but they didn't seem interested. I'm curious as to the size of your organization. I have not seen this tactic used anywhere except large companies, 5000+ employees.
"Beliefs" get in the way of learning.
August 19, 2009 at 6:39 am
Rule one: Everyone is self-employed.
Most people forget that, except where prohibited by law, companies, in general, can and will terminate anyone at any time with as little notice as legally possible. Wall Street rewards companies who 'show initiative cutting costs.' Which means, cutting staff whenever they fail to meet expectations. Most people would feel bad about quitting without notice in the middle of a project. Most companies see no problem with this.
Most of these 'test drive' scenarios benefit, primarily, the employer. If I already had a decent position, I would feel very strange about getting time off to work another job, as a test. If I was already unemployed, I would have less problems, as it gives a chance to show my stuff and check out the team. The downside is that they get benefit of my skills and expertise without any assurance that they won't drop me the next day. If I prove sufficiently valuable, they might choose to make the gig permanent, but then I still have to deal with the whole negotiation thing which could still make the position untenable.
I'm not sure that a test drive, from the employee's point of view is really any better than a decent set of interviews.
August 19, 2009 at 7:00 am
Most companies I've worked for have a 6 month probation period. At my current company, there is a 3 month review (which is more informal, but sets goals for the next 3 months), and after 6 months, you go through a formal review process. Managers get the opportunity to sit down and talk things through with the employee and set goals for the next 6 months. After that point, it's annual reviews.
Typically, given shorter term goals and forcing both the manager and the new hire to sit down and review the past few months gives both sides the chance to constructively criticize - and praise - one another. However, if someone just is not a fit after a week or two, a good manager needs to pull the trigger at that point - rather than waiting for the 3 or 6 month mark. It's not fair to either side to have to wait any longer.
I do like the idea of a couple of days to get someone in and acquainted better with the team(s) and see a little bit of real work from them. It's something that I would have liked as an employee a couple of times! But from both sides' perspectives - it's not a lot of time for either to have wasted if it doesn't work out.
August 19, 2009 at 7:03 am
The only real benefit for the employee is that you can see if you will gel with the team and if you can work in the atmosphere. More in depth and relaxed conversations would take place and you could determine a lot about the character of the company as well as the employees. Not a huge deal if you are just going for a job. If you are applying for a career though where you plan to stay for a long time it is more important you are in line with the goals of the group.
August 19, 2009 at 7:03 am
I've never actually heard of a 2 or 3 day trial period before, and I've been in the NE job market quite a bit in the last 3 years. However, much more common is a test, whether in the office, or take-home, where the potential employer gives you a scenario to code to, which does not disclose any business processes that would require a non-disclosure, and you write up some code to meet the scenario. I think this is a great idea, both from the interviewee, who enjoys practicing critical thinking, and the interviewer, who wants to know whether a potential employee pays attention to details, comments their code, and avoids common performance pitfalls.
Regarding the contract-to-hire, I've never understood it. I worked at a company once who hired me full time, and after 60 days they decided it wasn't a good fit and let me go. The fact that I wasn't on contract, or in a "probationary period" didn't stop either of us from severing the relationship. And yes, it was the right thing for both of us. I'm working at a company now, where I am contract-to-hire, and since I'm not full-time yet, I'm having trouble convincing my boss to get me the resources I need to do my job effectively (mostly permissions related). I told him I understand, but then he'll have to get someone else to do xyz task. Usually it results in some "bending of the rules" so that I can do the work after all. I really don't see why it's done this way. And isn't my boss paying a lot extra to the contracting firm during this period?
August 19, 2009 at 7:08 am
Absolutely. If it looks like a fit and they'll pay me for my time, I think it works to good advantage for both parties. As a potential employee I get to see how they work, how organized, have lunch with the team, get a feel for the workplace vibe. As a hiring manager I'll get to see them under time stress, find out how they do at lunch, do they fit it? Do they communicate?
This works even if the employee is still working, they schedule a couple days off and get paid (assuming in the same relative area).
Ideally I'd follow this by a contract to hire scenario or a probationary period. As a manager I prefer contract to hire, but this often doesn't work unless they go through a staffing company (adding cost) because they would not have health care during the contract.
August 19, 2009 at 7:09 am
Sounds like a pretty standard "contract-to-hire" situation to me. Lots of companies do that.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 19, 2009 at 7:10 am
I like the idea... it's a two way street. Not only does it give the company a chance to see if you will work out but gives you chance to find out if the company fits you. I would think that most places will be flexible in scheduling that two, three, etc days because of how important it is. If they took the time to pick you chances are they will be willing to wait a week or two to get you on staff for a couple days for a test run. If it works then your back in two weeks and you both are that much more comfortable in starting what could be a long term relationship.
The hiring company could always schedule two or three of these trials with different people if they felt there were that many candidates that would fit well.
Maybe I'm biased since I thought something just like this would be cool for the last place I interviewed. I ended up not taking additional interviews even though they requested because I thought the change in environment would be too big (only way I would have known would have been with a week or two trial). After working somewhere for 13 years you want to be darn sure any change is for the better.
My .02
Carl
EDIT:
I would add that I think anytime spent for the "test" work days would need to be compensated for (basically contract work).
August 19, 2009 at 7:11 am
I'd only do it if I was going to get paid for the two days of work.
I used to work at a small company where the CEO would place an ad in the paper advertising his job was open. He'd get lots of applicants and he'd take them through the company and ask them how they would improve things. In the end, he would hire no one, but would enjoy several days of free consulting work.
August 19, 2009 at 7:26 am
I can just picture companies deliberately bringing in people for a few days at low wages and no benefits and doing it over and over and over again to get a project done.
Not a good idea for the employees.
But lots of employers would just love it!
August 19, 2009 at 7:29 am
Mike in Michigan (8/19/2009)
I can just picture companies deliberately bringing in people for a few days at low wages and no benefits and doing it over and over and over again to get a project done.Not a good idea for the employees.
But lots of employers would just love it!
Maybe for a simple project or task. But might take a few days just to get up to speed on something complex.
August 19, 2009 at 7:38 am
One week seems a bit short. The problem is the person knows he/she is under the microscope and will make an extra effort to shine. Once the the trial period is over and the company decides to keep the person, the employee's effort may fall off. 3-6 months seems like a more reasonable period. It allows the employer to see how the person performs in varying conditions that is typical for the company, plus it gives time to see how well he/she works with the existing team (as others have already mentioned).
The key is for the employer to takes the review period seriously and not flake when it comes to the decision of whether or not to keep the person. It has been my experience that employers have taken the attitude "Well...he has been here for six months already, may as well keep him", and settle for only average performance level.
August 19, 2009 at 7:52 am
I'd be willing to do it. I like the general concept of a contract-to-hire position.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
August 19, 2009 at 8:10 am
There are really two parts to this... There is the continuation of the interview process and then there is the 'is their work up to snuff' process.
Contract to hire is the 'is their work up to snuff' while a 1-2 day onsite evaluation of work ethic and capabilities is the continuation of the interview process.
August 19, 2009 at 8:16 am
Mike in Michigan (8/19/2009)
I can just picture companies deliberately bringing in people for a few days at low wages and no benefits and doing it over and over and over again to get a project done.Not a good idea for the employees.
But lots of employers would just love it!
No time to document, no coordination, no hand-off from one dev to another, etc? Sounds more like a really good way to go over-budget and over-deadline in a way that might be able to get into the Guinness Book.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 51 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply