Ask HN: Does Hire quick Fire quick work?
3 コメント
As a candidate, I would not accept such an offer, no matter how qualified or over-qualified I was for the position. It really does take a while to see how things will shake out in an employment relationship. Plus, although I know loyalty is "dead", I'd worry about someone who trumpeted that fact so fiercely.
Anecdote: In one of the most successful jobs I ever had, there was a hard start. After a couple of months, my boss was clearly not entirely pleased with my work, and I suspect regretting having hired me. By six months, that had passed. When I moved on after a few years, he was rather obviously and dramatically unhappy to lose me.
My work didn't really change during that time. It just took him a while to figure out what I was doing and why. And for mutual trust and understanding to build up.
Anecdote: In one of the most successful jobs I ever had, there was a hard start. After a couple of months, my boss was clearly not entirely pleased with my work, and I suspect regretting having hired me. By six months, that had passed. When I moved on after a few years, he was rather obviously and dramatically unhappy to lose me.
My work didn't really change during that time. It just took him a while to figure out what I was doing and why. And for mutual trust and understanding to build up.
As an employer, I have never done this and would never do this. The entire approach signals that the company has no faith in itself or in its hires. As a potential employee, I would certainly decline to work for a company that did this -- not because I'm looking for a place to "hide out" and be a slacker or something, but because I don't want to work at a place that shows that level of disrespect/mistrust, or where I'd have to be constantly looking over my shoulder.
On the other hand, I have always used probationary periods when hiring people, and I have no problem accepting positions that come with a probationary period. As a hire, I really appreciate probationary periods because they cut both ways -- if I discover that I don't like working at the company, a probationary period lets me leave without it harming my career.
But none of those companies (including my own) that used probationary periods felt the need to indicate in advance that they don't have even a basic level of trust in people.
On the other hand, I have always used probationary periods when hiring people, and I have no problem accepting positions that come with a probationary period. As a hire, I really appreciate probationary periods because they cut both ways -- if I discover that I don't like working at the company, a probationary period lets me leave without it harming my career.
But none of those companies (including my own) that used probationary periods felt the need to indicate in advance that they don't have even a basic level of trust in people.
I thought phrase in my post "I choose to believe you" indicates basic trust. I dont see how you got confused and misread my intentions to claim quite the opposite.
I choose to trust, yes ! Thats the whole point. I dont trust the interview process itself to be valuable, b/c it does not give you neither the right context or enough time to learn about the person.
> I thought phrase in my post "I choose to believe you" indicates basic trust.
Interesting. I took that phrase as indicating the exact opposite. It implies that you don't really believe the person, but are electing to act as if you do (and to inform them of that fact) -- which means there is a lack of basic trust. I think because it's such an odd thing to say, it's hard to know how to interpret it.
In the context of the rest of your post, it seems to me to indicate a lack of trust even more strongly. But perhaps that's just me, and others would take it differently.
Why not just use probationary periods, but not emphasize the reason to the applicants? Everyone already knows what probationary periods are for, after all.
Interesting. I took that phrase as indicating the exact opposite. It implies that you don't really believe the person, but are electing to act as if you do (and to inform them of that fact) -- which means there is a lack of basic trust. I think because it's such an odd thing to say, it's hard to know how to interpret it.
In the context of the rest of your post, it seems to me to indicate a lack of trust even more strongly. But perhaps that's just me, and others would take it differently.
Why not just use probationary periods, but not emphasize the reason to the applicants? Everyone already knows what probationary periods are for, after all.
Well if you believe the person you never met, why do an interview at all then ? Basic trust - get on board ! Im sorry but your argument doesnt make sense. Nobody in their right mind expects to be trusted right out of the gate. They come to the interviews to build that trust. To prove they are what the paper says about them.
>Why not just use probationary periods, but not emphasize the reason to the applicants?
Thats effectively what i do, but I want to be upfront about it more so than its conventionally accepted. And the main reason is b/c i chose not to do long interviews, which might convey that "ah, seems like an easy place to slack, nobody gives a shit here"
Updated: added more clarifications.
>Why not just use probationary periods, but not emphasize the reason to the applicants?
Thats effectively what i do, but I want to be upfront about it more so than its conventionally accepted. And the main reason is b/c i chose not to do long interviews, which might convey that "ah, seems like an easy place to slack, nobody gives a shit here"
Updated: added more clarifications.
But I get your point. Maybe its better not to emphasize too much about the "trusting their words". Thanks.
UPDATE:
Seems like I somehow managed to confuse the readers.
I choose to trust the candidate. Even more so than anybody with traditional approach with technical interviews and endless back and forth. I hire, pay salary after 1 hour of chatting. Only Im direct about my intentions. I specify what is expected of the candidate when hired and Its up to them to live up to what they commit to during the chat.
The reason im doing this vs "traditional" way is 2 fold:
1. I dont want to spend endless time on back and forth and technical challenges. Not only I dont have that time, but I would be spending that time (hence money) that I could use to hire them for a probation period. 2. Interviews give lots of false positives. Its like unit tests - you think you covered 100% of your code and you'r done. But shit still hits the fan b/c your integrational/functional coverage sucked. Interviews are only the unit tests !
Do you guys ever try approach ? How does this work out for you ?