One thing that we're really big on is, wherever we can, we'll engage in a paid trial, or a paid test of some kind. For engineers, this is rather straightforward. We'll basically just ask what their desired hourly or day rate is, and we'll put them on a modular project for them to work on. That kind of doesn't require being highly integrated with the rest of the team.
This is great for the company. But for the candidate, I'm not convinced.
If I'm a W2 employee, I don't have any interest in complicating my tax return for a couple of days trial contract. Realistically, how much more are you going to learn about me in that time frame over a 1-2 hour technical interview.
Some plan on a longer trial contract - I see alot of 3-6 month contract-to-hire situations. This still isn't good enough because in startups the candidate will miss out on stock vesting. In large companies the candidate will be 'other'... there is a clear divide between FTE's and contractors at most large corps/there is a risk that the project might change/role availability will change.
If a company is serious about hiring employees. I'm convinced w2 from the start is the best.
It sends the message - we trust you, you belong, you're a part of our team. There can definitely be a probationary period, and there should be a more stringent hiring process. To me this is about signaling. If a company isn't willing to hire full time I think one of the following: 1. You don't have enough funding to do this right. 2. You don't know how to properly interview people. or 3. You think this is being generous but in reality don't fully understand the implications.
Remote work is about trust. If you don't trust someone - you don't have any business hiring them. Even in the current covid situation I'm seeing people hesitant to hire remotely. It's crazy. It's so much easier to slack off in an office than in a properly setup remote team.
Contractors are great for remote as well. But set clear expectations - straddling between contractor and employee is counter productive.
Here in Germany you're usually not allowed to do any paid work without notifying your current employer, or at all.
Also not even sure how it would work for currently-not-employed people, you can't just write a bill for 2 days of work without a company.
And this is just additional to any tax problems.
That said, I think I like the idea a lot more than sitting through interviews. But it's simply not feasible (here) unless you're a freelancer already and just do this as a short paid gig before starting there. (Because then you should be prepared for such a gig, anyway).
I think you learn a lot - way more than an interview will tell you. That’s true on both sides. As a candidate you get to see what the code quality is like, how the engineering process actually works, how communication works, etc.
It’s not possible to do trials of significant length with a lot of folks. It can even just be a few hours and a simple bug fix task.
We don’t typically do contract to hire over a prolonged period. Once we’ve built conviction we make full time W2 offers. We try to get there as quickly as possible and a paid test is one of the tools we use.
Comments
This is great for the company. But for the candidate, I'm not convinced.
If I'm a W2 employee, I don't have any interest in complicating my tax return for a couple of days trial contract. Realistically, how much more are you going to learn about me in that time frame over a 1-2 hour technical interview.
Some plan on a longer trial contract - I see alot of 3-6 month contract-to-hire situations. This still isn't good enough because in startups the candidate will miss out on stock vesting. In large companies the candidate will be 'other'... there is a clear divide between FTE's and contractors at most large corps/there is a risk that the project might change/role availability will change.
If a company is serious about hiring employees. I'm convinced w2 from the start is the best.
It sends the message - we trust you, you belong, you're a part of our team. There can definitely be a probationary period, and there should be a more stringent hiring process. To me this is about signaling. If a company isn't willing to hire full time I think one of the following: 1. You don't have enough funding to do this right. 2. You don't know how to properly interview people. or 3. You think this is being generous but in reality don't fully understand the implications.
Remote work is about trust. If you don't trust someone - you don't have any business hiring them. Even in the current covid situation I'm seeing people hesitant to hire remotely. It's crazy. It's so much easier to slack off in an office than in a properly setup remote team.
Contractors are great for remote as well. But set clear expectations - straddling between contractor and employee is counter productive.
Also probably tailored to US law?
Here in Germany you're usually not allowed to do any paid work without notifying your current employer, or at all.
Also not even sure how it would work for currently-not-employed people, you can't just write a bill for 2 days of work without a company.
And this is just additional to any tax problems.
That said, I think I like the idea a lot more than sitting through interviews. But it's simply not feasible (here) unless you're a freelancer already and just do this as a short paid gig before starting there. (Because then you should be prepared for such a gig, anyway).
I think you learn a lot - way more than an interview will tell you. That’s true on both sides. As a candidate you get to see what the code quality is like, how the engineering process actually works, how communication works, etc.
It’s not possible to do trials of significant length with a lot of folks. It can even just be a few hours and a simple bug fix task.
We don’t typically do contract to hire over a prolonged period. Once we’ve built conviction we make full time W2 offers. We try to get there as quickly as possible and a paid test is one of the tools we use.