What If You Could "Date" Companies?(fastcompany.com)
fastcompany.com
What If You Could "Date" Companies?
http://www.fastcompany.com/3013349/innovation-agents/what-if-you-could-date-companies
9 comments
How about the guys on a TN/H1B visa? It can be harder to be a remote freelancer than freelancer in the bay.
Exactly. It's not uncommon for design firms (interactive and motion) to conduct a probation period with potential employees by paying them a freelance rate for a few months prior to writing an offer.
That's also why I balk at companies that give take home tests to screen applicants.
That's also why I balk at companies that give take home tests to screen applicants.
FWIW: the practice of having prospective employees do a probation period as a contractor is (take your pick) unreasonable and/or counterproductive.
It does seem like the mechanisms people have come up with for this so far are counterproductive. But the underlying problem seems to me a real one, and a hard one: how can you tell whether someone will be good to work with? The only way to know is to actually work with them. So (the argument goes) rather than relying on bogus predictors, let's just test the hypothesis "this person will be a good addition to our team" directly.
Since you think about hiring a lot, I'm curious: do you think the above is accurate? If no, how would you phrase it differently? If yes, how would you recommend testing that hypothesis instead?
Since you think about hiring a lot, I'm curious: do you think the above is accurate? If no, how would you phrase it differently? If yes, how would you recommend testing that hypothesis instead?
I think it's very accurate, and I think the idea of temp- to- perm hiring is seductive for exactly that reason.
In addition to the argument that the economics of temp- to- perm don't work out in this market for tech talent, there are also fundamental problems with the approach.
Most importantly: lots of people can perform well for short periods of time, especially if they don't have to deal with interpersonal conflicts (which take time to develop) or technical design disagreements (which only happen at inflection points in product/service design; ie, it might take 8 months to discover whether someone can "disagree and commit" to work on a team where they disapprove of some technical decision). Also, lots of people can work well on a project for a couple weeks before they get bored, and some of those people lack the ability to kickstart their engagement back up again once they feel "burned out" by a problem domain.
I think those are some of the most likely failure modes of new employees, and they also happen to be different from the failure modes that classic interviewing and work-sample testing are likely to suss out; ie, you can cover the non-psychological non-work-ethic concerns about new candidates with a relatively straightforward hiring process, so temp- to- perm might not even buy you much even if you don't assume that the approach is costing you the best candidates.
In addition to the argument that the economics of temp- to- perm don't work out in this market for tech talent, there are also fundamental problems with the approach.
Most importantly: lots of people can perform well for short periods of time, especially if they don't have to deal with interpersonal conflicts (which take time to develop) or technical design disagreements (which only happen at inflection points in product/service design; ie, it might take 8 months to discover whether someone can "disagree and commit" to work on a team where they disapprove of some technical decision). Also, lots of people can work well on a project for a couple weeks before they get bored, and some of those people lack the ability to kickstart their engagement back up again once they feel "burned out" by a problem domain.
I think those are some of the most likely failure modes of new employees, and they also happen to be different from the failure modes that classic interviewing and work-sample testing are likely to suss out; ie, you can cover the non-psychological non-work-ethic concerns about new candidates with a relatively straightforward hiring process, so temp- to- perm might not even buy you much even if you don't assume that the approach is costing you the best candidates.
[deleted]
I'm not sure I see the difference between the freelancer->fulltime and contractor/probation->fulltime progressions. Is is just because in the latter case they weren't already a freelancer/contractor? Is there a big terminological issue I'm missing?
The two issues (unfairness and inefficiency) are somewhat orthogonal. So let me just guess that you're referring to the "inefficiency" side of the problem.
The problem is that companies looking to fill full-time slots are looking to fill full-time slots, not to engage a succession of contractors.
By requiring candidates to perform in a contractor role prior to signing on full-time, companies are effectively disqualifying most candidates that are currently employed. That's because very few people sniffing around for a better job than the one they have now can afford to drop out of the market for months or even weeks delivering work as a contractor. That's not how most people switch jobs; instead, most people search for their new job from the comfort and security of their current job, knowing that if (say) interviews don't work out, they can take their time looking for the next lead, knowing that they can continue to execute on their current job.
This is a problem for employers because virtually everybody you'd want to hire in this market is already employed.
The problem is that companies looking to fill full-time slots are looking to fill full-time slots, not to engage a succession of contractors.
By requiring candidates to perform in a contractor role prior to signing on full-time, companies are effectively disqualifying most candidates that are currently employed. That's because very few people sniffing around for a better job than the one they have now can afford to drop out of the market for months or even weeks delivering work as a contractor. That's not how most people switch jobs; instead, most people search for their new job from the comfort and security of their current job, knowing that if (say) interviews don't work out, they can take their time looking for the next lead, knowing that they can continue to execute on their current job.
This is a problem for employers because virtually everybody you'd want to hire in this market is already employed.
And those who aren't full-time employed may not bite on the contract-to-perm offer either. Because in my limited experience "here's our contract-to-perm offer" usually translates to: "Please freelance for us at sub-market rates, under our poorly-thought-out non-negotiable boilerplate contract with unclear deliverables."
Typically they offer to take a slightly-low full-time weekly salary+benefits number, divide it by 40, and pay that as an hourly rate. Oh, goody.
No company wants to pay a contractor the going rate for contractors, and then face the unenviable task of talking that contractor's rate back down again when making them a full-time offer. Nor do they want the bother of haggling over the details of a contract deal that will almost always prove, one way or the other, to have been a wasted opportunity. (If the worker proves to be competent, the contract will be replaced by a full-time offer as quickly as possible. If the worker is incompetent, the contract will be terminated at the earliest practical date. In no case does anyone care much about the contract. It is a consolation prize for everyone involved.)
My personal philosophy is to treat contracting and employment like oil and water. Both can be tasty. But they are different things and one does not merge seamlessly into the other.
Typically they offer to take a slightly-low full-time weekly salary+benefits number, divide it by 40, and pay that as an hourly rate. Oh, goody.
No company wants to pay a contractor the going rate for contractors, and then face the unenviable task of talking that contractor's rate back down again when making them a full-time offer. Nor do they want the bother of haggling over the details of a contract deal that will almost always prove, one way or the other, to have been a wasted opportunity. (If the worker proves to be competent, the contract will be replaced by a full-time offer as quickly as possible. If the worker is incompetent, the contract will be terminated at the earliest practical date. In no case does anyone care much about the contract. It is a consolation prize for everyone involved.)
My personal philosophy is to treat contracting and employment like oil and water. Both can be tasty. But they are different things and one does not merge seamlessly into the other.
So the difference is whether you started off in a full-time job, and come into the deal hoping for one? If you're a freelancer, the chance of a fulltime position is one you can take or leave at your leisure. But if you start off as a fulltimer somewhere else and come into some contract-to-hire scenario, that's what you don't like. Amirite?
Anyway, I learned. Thanks.
Anyway, I learned. Thanks.
Contrary to the other comment, moonlighting is just as easy for someone FT employed to try as someone who is no employed. The FT employed can make 20-30hrs available a week to try out a company on a set amount of work and get a feel for it. The alternative is to go through a set interviews (that if you read the google article, are useless) and then change your job (effectively putting a bullet on your last job) only to find out that you hate your new job and now you are stuck there.
Try outs are safer and available for all.
So now we're talking about constricting the flow of candidates down to those who are willing to accept a second job for weeks to mitigate the concerns of future employers.
The problem here is obvious: the best candidates don't ever have to put up with stuff like this. They're actively courted by prospective employers.
Sure, not every candidate can be "one of the best candidates". But why would a rational employer select a screening process that overtly rules those candidates out?
The problem here is obvious: the best candidates don't ever have to put up with stuff like this. They're actively courted by prospective employers.
Sure, not every candidate can be "one of the best candidates". But why would a rational employer select a screening process that overtly rules those candidates out?
Calling it a "probation" period is creating a loaded discussion. It can be in the developer's interest to find a job that really interests her rather than give a full-time commitment based off of an interview.
Ugh, the take-home test/coding assignment. I've done two of these and I will never do another. Bottom line, if a company can't be bothered to respect that the time the interview process eats up for both parties, they probably aren't going to be worth spending their time with long-term.
Interesting. Why do you feel this way? We rely on "take-home" (they're set up in advance of the f2f interview) work-sample tests pretty extensively, and I feel like they're probably more humane; for instance, you can look things up on the Internet, do them in a comfortable setting, &c.
I'll leave out the details of the two I've done since it's a sore spot on my psyche but I'll talk about them in general.
Maybe yours is different, but I think the first problem is they typically have a lack of clearly defined goals. I know that probably is the idea behind these - to see what someone comes up with - but it can be very intimidating. Especially given the fact that the interviewee is already nervous enough and now they are given something ambiguous. I think that's more nerve-wracking than the interview itself.
Second, I think that code-style tends to get graded on these more than the content. Unless it's completed in some really novel way (which isn't always a positive) there's nothing to do but nit-pick how the code looks.
Third, its disrespectful of the interviewees time, especially relatively large coding assignments. If a candidate has a job, is it fair to expect them to go home and spend a couple hours working on something that is essentially worthless?
Finally, typically the candidate gets no feedback. I had one that was a 'pass' and I never found out why. You are essentially grading me on an assignment and then don't have the decency to tell me what was wrong? This is related to the previous item as a time-waster.
So, those are my reasons. Just my two cents.
Maybe yours is different, but I think the first problem is they typically have a lack of clearly defined goals. I know that probably is the idea behind these - to see what someone comes up with - but it can be very intimidating. Especially given the fact that the interviewee is already nervous enough and now they are given something ambiguous. I think that's more nerve-wracking than the interview itself.
Second, I think that code-style tends to get graded on these more than the content. Unless it's completed in some really novel way (which isn't always a positive) there's nothing to do but nit-pick how the code looks.
Third, its disrespectful of the interviewees time, especially relatively large coding assignments. If a candidate has a job, is it fair to expect them to go home and spend a couple hours working on something that is essentially worthless?
Finally, typically the candidate gets no feedback. I had one that was a 'pass' and I never found out why. You are essentially grading me on an assignment and then don't have the decency to tell me what was wrong? This is related to the previous item as a time-waster.
So, those are my reasons. Just my two cents.
I don't want to let myself off the hook too easily here, because we don't hire for typical developer roles; our work-sample tests are very well defined (they're exercises in finding and exploiting vulnerabilities) but I'm generally interested in the technique overall. So let's stipulate I'm a hiring for a standard dev role. I think you make some great points.
(1) Yes, ambiguity is death. It's bad for the reason you say it is (it psyches you out, and discovering how people perform when they're at their most psyched-out is a pointless exercise). But it's also bad because open-ended tests are hard to grade and compare. Work-sample tests need to be standardized and they need to be defined rigorously enough that you can draw comparisons between candidates, and then draw comparisons between the performance of hires and the tests.
(2) Yes, grading superficial issues is also bad, for the same reason: when you give someone "points for style" (or demerits), you lose the ability to make apples-apples comparisons with candidates over time.
(3) I flat out disagree that take-home work is disrespectful of candidates. Most interview processes demand that employees submit to several (3+) hour+ long phone screens, then show up at an office for 1-2 days of interviewing. Allowing candidates to do the most important technical portion of the interview on their own time, on their own schedule, in their own location is simply better for the candidate than forcing them into a room with a whiteboard.
(4) Yes, not giving feedback to candidates is one of the great sins of tech hiring. Some of this is folkloric; for instance, there's a belief that providing feedback to candidates you opt not to hire sets you up for frivolous complaints down the road. But there are ways around that problem.
(1) Yes, ambiguity is death. It's bad for the reason you say it is (it psyches you out, and discovering how people perform when they're at their most psyched-out is a pointless exercise). But it's also bad because open-ended tests are hard to grade and compare. Work-sample tests need to be standardized and they need to be defined rigorously enough that you can draw comparisons between candidates, and then draw comparisons between the performance of hires and the tests.
(2) Yes, grading superficial issues is also bad, for the same reason: when you give someone "points for style" (or demerits), you lose the ability to make apples-apples comparisons with candidates over time.
(3) I flat out disagree that take-home work is disrespectful of candidates. Most interview processes demand that employees submit to several (3+) hour+ long phone screens, then show up at an office for 1-2 days of interviewing. Allowing candidates to do the most important technical portion of the interview on their own time, on their own schedule, in their own location is simply better for the candidate than forcing them into a room with a whiteboard.
(4) Yes, not giving feedback to candidates is one of the great sins of tech hiring. Some of this is folkloric; for instance, there's a belief that providing feedback to candidates you opt not to hire sets you up for frivolous complaints down the road. But there are ways around that problem.
I see your arguments for #1, #2, and #4. Fair enough responses.
As for #3, if you aren't a fairly exclusive 'brand' (like Google, Amazon, maybe Facebook) and you are known for having a long interview process, I think a fair number of applicants won't even bother. I've been asked by Amazon to interview a few times and their process just seems like a big pain for not much gain. Unless I was right out of college I just wouldn't find it worth the effort.
So if a recruiter tells me an interview process is extensive and way too involved for the market, I'll just pass. When jobs are plentiful a candidate can afford to be picky.
EDIT: sentence clarity.
As for #3, if you aren't a fairly exclusive 'brand' (like Google, Amazon, maybe Facebook) and you are known for having a long interview process, I think a fair number of applicants won't even bother. I've been asked by Amazon to interview a few times and their process just seems like a big pain for not much gain. Unless I was right out of college I just wouldn't find it worth the effort.
So if a recruiter tells me an interview process is extensive and way too involved for the market, I'll just pass. When jobs are plentiful a candidate can afford to be picky.
EDIT: sentence clarity.
Good developers have always a project that they are working on. Be either an open source project, app, game, little library, whatever. Working on a take home assignment is just a waste of time, where that person could be working on something useful. Or they could be spending that time with their kids, friends, or just relaxing.
The only time it is ok to ask for a take home assignment is when the person is at most a couple of years out of school, and they haven't proven themselves yet.
I personally refuse doing to do take home assignment as I have enough projects in my belt that I can show. It is usually a sign that the other party is not mature enough, and they don't know what they are looking for, and once you join that company they will treat like a junior engineer, when you might be past that.
The only time it is ok to ask for a take home assignment is when the person is at most a couple of years out of school, and they haven't proven themselves yet.
I personally refuse doing to do take home assignment as I have enough projects in my belt that I can show. It is usually a sign that the other party is not mature enough, and they don't know what they are looking for, and once you join that company they will treat like a junior engineer, when you might be past that.
But you can say the same thing about a long in-person interview, which has the added disadvantage of demanding your time during the working day.
How long do you usually expect these tests to take? Do you pay for the interviewees time?
No, we don't. And, a couple hours. The time commitment we demand from candidates is calibrated to be about the same as you'd demand from a (rigorous) day of on-site interviews. Our on-sites are a half-day thing, not a full-day.
I used to agree with you, but I've seen the other side of this. When I was applying for FT jobs out of school, one of the companies I interviewed with sent me a small coding assignment, which I completed - I got the job. I've been here for over 2 years, and turning in that coding assignment is probably one of the best things I've ever done for my career. Was it really necessary for them to tell that I could code? I don't know, but showing up at work and knowing that everyone I worked with had been subjected to the same test and rigorous technical interview was nice - I knew I was working with smart people. In contrast, the other two companies I got offers from barely had any interview process at all, which was worrying to me - if they'd hire me without so much as a fizzbuzz test, who knew what kind of people they had working for them?
Are you going to be so responsive to silly fizzbuzz tests 10 years down the line with multiple successful (and unsuccessful) projects under your belt? If a senior developer gets asked to write a sorting algorithm don't be surprised if they just walk out and enjoy the rest of their day.
Coding assignment sand fizzbuzz tests are not necessary if the applicants can demonstare their coding ability otherwise, by e.g. showing a portfolio.
Despite what you might think, it is still very difficult for a talented developer to break into freelancing.
Simply put, GT gives developers deal flow.
Simply put, GT gives developers deal flow.
My whole career I've worked with freelancers at both big firms and small firms and my general ambient belief is that the market is full of people quietly beating the returns they'd get from being FT by doing freelancing work instead.
I'm not suggesting that you need to be Patrick McKenzie to execute this strategy.
I'm not suggesting that you need to be Patrick McKenzie to execute this strategy.
[deleted]
Another Silicon Valley startup solving a uniquely Silicon Valley problem. It's amazing the amount of effort and investment that goes into the problem of finding engineers, and comparatively how little goes into the rest of the labor market.
I there a reason to think this couldn't be applicable to a million other jobs? Obviously, not all jobs allow this flexibility, but surely many more do than just coders.
Labor laws make these sorts of arrangements difficult in other jobs. If the job requires that you go to the office and utilize the employer's equipment, you generally can't work as a consultant. Also, there are issues with workers compensation insurance. Most people also prefer full time work as it has benefits such as health insurance.
This should be the only way to hire. I've never hired anybody at my startup that I haven't worked closely with for at least a few months, and it seems sheer insanity to do otherwise.
Except this would then:
A) Only apply to small "startups"
B) Be horribly inefficient.
This doesn't scale, but I'm glad for your startup it works. You like it because you don't have to pay unemployment/benefits for someone that you end up firing, probably, so of course you are going to support something like this (being the one hiring).
This doesn't scale, but I'm glad for your startup it works. You like it because you don't have to pay unemployment/benefits for someone that you end up firing, probably, so of course you are going to support something like this (being the one hiring).
AFAIK this is how Stripe works as well.
I don't care about not having to pay unemployment/benefits. The reason I like it (or rather, need it) is because our organization is little more than the employees we have, and I want to make sure that they are awesome.
I don't care about not having to pay unemployment/benefits. The reason I like it (or rather, need it) is because our organization is little more than the employees we have, and I want to make sure that they are awesome.
Every recruiting firm that does consulting has some language in their agreement (with both the consultant and the client) about a cost (fee) for hiring the consultant directly. Try before you buy has been around forever. If they are moving these consultants around to different companies to find a match, that is somewhat unique. Just placing someone into a contract-to-hire role until the not hire/hire decision is made is not new.
I like contract-to-hire overall, but one problem is that you get lifetime contractors who have no intention of ever converting to perm roles, and they just stay as long as they can. Companies are more inclined to invest in and train a contract-to-hire employee over a pure contract employee. The brain drain can be a problem.
Another issue is contract-to-hire employees usually are paid a premium, and get accustomed to the money, making them less apt to convert. This is particularly troublesome for those that get their benefits through their spouse/partner, where the extra money seems substantial because they aren't paying for benefits or COBRA out of it.
Probationary periods are rather useless in any at will employment state (in the US, not sure about international law). Why put "We can fire you in 90 days if you don't perform" in an employment contract when you can simply fire someone on day 2 if you really wanted to? It seems like a decent motivational tool perhaps, but in markets like software it is just another reason for candidates to potentially turn down work, where the alternative (no probationary period and no expectation of even 90 days of work) is better for both parties.
I like contract-to-hire overall, but one problem is that you get lifetime contractors who have no intention of ever converting to perm roles, and they just stay as long as they can. Companies are more inclined to invest in and train a contract-to-hire employee over a pure contract employee. The brain drain can be a problem.
Another issue is contract-to-hire employees usually are paid a premium, and get accustomed to the money, making them less apt to convert. This is particularly troublesome for those that get their benefits through their spouse/partner, where the extra money seems substantial because they aren't paying for benefits or COBRA out of it.
Probationary periods are rather useless in any at will employment state (in the US, not sure about international law). Why put "We can fire you in 90 days if you don't perform" in an employment contract when you can simply fire someone on day 2 if you really wanted to? It seems like a decent motivational tool perhaps, but in markets like software it is just another reason for candidates to potentially turn down work, where the alternative (no probationary period and no expectation of even 90 days of work) is better for both parties.
The probationary period is to reduce risk of lawsuits because at-will employment is actually very complicated when it comes to subjective evaluation (i.e. all white collar work) and no one wants to cut a severance check for someone who is cut in the first 90 days.
"At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason". For example, if you work for a 5,000-person company and you're fired for performance after failing on one project and being denied transfer, and you can prove that someone else was allowed transfer under the same circumstances, you can possibly win a discrimination or harassment case (especially because any negative communication about you by management that impedes your chance at transfer can be construed as harassment; this is why the common practice of making performance reviews Enron-style-- that is, part of the transfer packet-- exposes a company to severe legal risk).
If you apply to a 5-person company and get fired in Month 3 because your boss (probably the CEO) isn't feeling it, you probably don't have legal recourse, because as owner and manager of the business, he has the right to select personnel. If it's a 5,000-person company, and you weren't give a few chances to prove yourself on multiple projects, you can raise accusations of personal bias. (That's why companies implement those horrible 18-month policies against internal transfer-- it's to create the impression of a uniform performance standard-- however, those only have legal weight if enforced uniformly, which they never are.) Even if you don't win, you can bring a lot of HR records into fresh air (which a company doesn't want) as they try to prove that you failed according to a set of rules that is enforced uniformly. Companies would rather pay severance than have the courts getting into their HR records.
The probation period is generally more "at-will" than regular employment. For most companies, probation means a couple of things. First, it means that a no-show constitutes voluntary resignation and therefore can't require the company to pay unemployment. (This isn't an issue at our level, but most people are not as ambitious and diligent as we are, and no-shows happen.) Second, it blocks the "employee should have been allowed transfer before termination" argument because the going assumption is that no one transfers in a probation period. Third, it often means no vacation is accrued, which is relevant when people are terminated early on (because they usually haven't used it). Fourth, and perhaps most relevant, it means that one should not expect severance if terminated in that time.
"At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason". For example, if you work for a 5,000-person company and you're fired for performance after failing on one project and being denied transfer, and you can prove that someone else was allowed transfer under the same circumstances, you can possibly win a discrimination or harassment case (especially because any negative communication about you by management that impedes your chance at transfer can be construed as harassment; this is why the common practice of making performance reviews Enron-style-- that is, part of the transfer packet-- exposes a company to severe legal risk).
If you apply to a 5-person company and get fired in Month 3 because your boss (probably the CEO) isn't feeling it, you probably don't have legal recourse, because as owner and manager of the business, he has the right to select personnel. If it's a 5,000-person company, and you weren't give a few chances to prove yourself on multiple projects, you can raise accusations of personal bias. (That's why companies implement those horrible 18-month policies against internal transfer-- it's to create the impression of a uniform performance standard-- however, those only have legal weight if enforced uniformly, which they never are.) Even if you don't win, you can bring a lot of HR records into fresh air (which a company doesn't want) as they try to prove that you failed according to a set of rules that is enforced uniformly. Companies would rather pay severance than have the courts getting into their HR records.
The probation period is generally more "at-will" than regular employment. For most companies, probation means a couple of things. First, it means that a no-show constitutes voluntary resignation and therefore can't require the company to pay unemployment. (This isn't an issue at our level, but most people are not as ambitious and diligent as we are, and no-shows happen.) Second, it blocks the "employee should have been allowed transfer before termination" argument because the going assumption is that no one transfers in a probation period. Third, it often means no vacation is accrued, which is relevant when people are terminated early on (because they usually haven't used it). Fourth, and perhaps most relevant, it means that one should not expect severance if terminated in that time.
> "At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason".
This is somewhat misleading. It definitaly allows them to vary their perfomance standards for different individuals (just not to discriminate on a set of specific prohibited bases) and to fire for any reason except for set of specifically prohibited illegal reasons. Having consistent standards (both in theory and in documentable enforcement practice) for everyone isn't a requirement, it just helps you prove that the firing was not for a prohibited reason, and that the standards you were applying to that particular person were not discriminatory on one of the specifically-impermissible bases.
Many of the things that people perceive as "legal requirements" aren't actually legal requirements, they are things that are common practices designed to demonstrate that the actual legal requirements are being met.
This is somewhat misleading. It definitaly allows them to vary their perfomance standards for different individuals (just not to discriminate on a set of specific prohibited bases) and to fire for any reason except for set of specifically prohibited illegal reasons. Having consistent standards (both in theory and in documentable enforcement practice) for everyone isn't a requirement, it just helps you prove that the firing was not for a prohibited reason, and that the standards you were applying to that particular person were not discriminatory on one of the specifically-impermissible bases.
Many of the things that people perceive as "legal requirements" aren't actually legal requirements, they are things that are common practices designed to demonstrate that the actual legal requirements are being met.
What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong. Companies don't want HR data of any kind (even if it will prove the firm's case) seeing fresh air.
For one example that can be played (by employee) to a win, the most common case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking transfer to another team, and the manager decides to punish the "disloyal" report, often with negative reviews and "performance improvement plans" that block transfer outright. In that particular case, it's arguably retaliation (over a legitimate use of internal mobility procedures) and harassment (negative communication interfering with job performance) for the manager to be doing so.
Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that is harassment, and bad performance reviews qualify in companies that use Enron-style reviews (i.e. reviews that are part of the transfer packet). That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. Managers can give positive verbal feedback and annotate it with a smear that the employee never sees. This makes it less likely that a report's lack of mobility will result in a lawsuit.
That's why if you ever see a PIP, you should never sign it, and in fact leave the room immediately. "I have to go to the bathroom". Then you start your internal mobility search immediately. If you do it properly (this includes that you were never there to see the PIP) then the pursuit of transfer happened before the PIP, which hints at a retaliatory context.
This move doesn't work under a probationary period because anyone who seeks transfer when on probation is (reasonable man standard) deemed unwilling to follow workplace policies-- or, more informally but to the point, a flake.
For one example that can be played (by employee) to a win, the most common case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking transfer to another team, and the manager decides to punish the "disloyal" report, often with negative reviews and "performance improvement plans" that block transfer outright. In that particular case, it's arguably retaliation (over a legitimate use of internal mobility procedures) and harassment (negative communication interfering with job performance) for the manager to be doing so.
Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that is harassment, and bad performance reviews qualify in companies that use Enron-style reviews (i.e. reviews that are part of the transfer packet). That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. Managers can give positive verbal feedback and annotate it with a smear that the employee never sees. This makes it less likely that a report's lack of mobility will result in a lawsuit.
That's why if you ever see a PIP, you should never sign it, and in fact leave the room immediately. "I have to go to the bathroom". Then you start your internal mobility search immediately. If you do it properly (this includes that you were never there to see the PIP) then the pursuit of transfer happened before the PIP, which hints at a retaliatory context.
This move doesn't work under a probationary period because anyone who seeks transfer when on probation is (reasonable man standard) deemed unwilling to follow workplace policies-- or, more informally but to the point, a flake.
> What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong.
No, its because having those procedures in place is how they prove in court that they did nothing wrong. If you can prove that you did it for a specific legitimate reason, that proves that you did not do it for a specific illegitimate reason.
Now, its true that that also means that a case is less likely to end up in court, but that's because the evidence exists for use in court, its not some feature of the process independent of its evidentiary value in court.
No, its because having those procedures in place is how they prove in court that they did nothing wrong. If you can prove that you did it for a specific legitimate reason, that proves that you did not do it for a specific illegitimate reason.
Now, its true that that also means that a case is less likely to end up in court, but that's because the evidence exists for use in court, its not some feature of the process independent of its evidentiary value in court.
Companies don't want the case to go to court at all. Even if it wins, it looks bad and a lot of embarrassing stuff is discovered. So much of the process is also around making the employee perceive that there is no recourse, or that a case should not be pursued.
For example, most of the time, a person will pursue a case if he or she perceives moral superiority over the other party. So the employer's goal is to equalize that difference, either by bringing itself up or by bringing the employee down.
Severance payments are there to make the employee feel good about the company. It didn't work out, but the company was fair and everyone can move on to a better arrangement. This is a decent way of doing because, after all, most people don't want to sue ex-employers. They want to move on with their careers.
A PIP's purpose is to make the employee feel bad about himself. PIPs actually make it easier for employees to sue, but are justified on the basis that they will be less likely to do so if they think they have less recourse. I have no idea how this works out empirically.
For example, most of the time, a person will pursue a case if he or she perceives moral superiority over the other party. So the employer's goal is to equalize that difference, either by bringing itself up or by bringing the employee down.
Severance payments are there to make the employee feel good about the company. It didn't work out, but the company was fair and everyone can move on to a better arrangement. This is a decent way of doing because, after all, most people don't want to sue ex-employers. They want to move on with their careers.
A PIP's purpose is to make the employee feel bad about himself. PIPs actually make it easier for employees to sue, but are justified on the basis that they will be less likely to do so if they think they have less recourse. I have no idea how this works out empirically.
> Companies don't want the case to go to court at all.
That's not in dispute. The point you are missing is that the value of the practices I was addressing (which weren't, you'll notice, PIPs) is still the evidentiary value those practices provide in court, because that evidentiary value is itself the mechanism by which they prevent disputes from ending up in court in the first place.
That's not in dispute. The point you are missing is that the value of the practices I was addressing (which weren't, you'll notice, PIPs) is still the evidentiary value those practices provide in court, because that evidentiary value is itself the mechanism by which they prevent disputes from ending up in court in the first place.
My understanding of at will employment is that a reason does not even need to be given to the fired employee. You can sue and claim it was for one of the protected reasons, but I don't think your termination requires a justification. Is this not correct?
I think you are oversimplifying what probationary periods mean. I've worked with (not for, but represented) more than one employer that had a so-called probationary period, and both looked quite different. One did not provide benefits during that period but vacation did accrue. A probationary period can vary by employer.
I think you are oversimplifying what probationary periods mean. I've worked with (not for, but represented) more than one employer that had a so-called probationary period, and both looked quite different. One did not provide benefits during that period but vacation did accrue. A probationary period can vary by employer.
If there's a layoff, no justification is needed with regard to who ends up on the list. The company's downsizing, and no other justification is needed. They don't have to say why you were on the list.
If they try to claim that it's "for cause", then they have to say what the cause is. If you're the only person fired that day, it's not really a layoff.
Many companies will give you a decent severance and not get into specifics, though. In that case, you should take the deal and move on.
This stuff's really complicated, with a lot of variation by state, company, and circumstance. However, the "can fire for any reason" claim is blatantly incorrect. Companies don't pay severance or run "performance improvement plans" because they're nice; they do it because at-will employment is very complicated and firms are risk-averse.
If they try to claim that it's "for cause", then they have to say what the cause is. If you're the only person fired that day, it's not really a layoff.
Many companies will give you a decent severance and not get into specifics, though. In that case, you should take the deal and move on.
This stuff's really complicated, with a lot of variation by state, company, and circumstance. However, the "can fire for any reason" claim is blatantly incorrect. Companies don't pay severance or run "performance improvement plans" because they're nice; they do it because at-will employment is very complicated and firms are risk-averse.
Personally, I think these anti-discrimination laws are probably fundamentally flawed for a while now, at least nowadays.
How is this good for the employee? So I quit my job and make a contract for few months, what should I do if they don't decide to hire me full-time? There's lots of risk to me, as companies at GroupTalent probably choose to not hire the employees as often as companies doing 'normal' recruitment.
In addition, I'm not sure how contract-to-hire for 4 months is different from hiring someone for 'full time' and then firing after the few first months if they don't perform well.
In addition, I'm not sure how contract-to-hire for 4 months is different from hiring someone for 'full time' and then firing after the few first months if they don't perform well.
Hi - this is Manny, CEO of GT. If you a try a company and then FT it may be a great outcome for you too. As you may in the long term not be a good fit for that job. Plus in the process of discovery you made a ton of money (contractor payouts are 70% to 100% higher than regular FT salaries even when it includes benefits!)
Your point is right in that try-before-you-buy is not a new construct but rather a corollary of being an at-will employment society. So yes, GroupTalent is just a hiring platform that allows tryouts as a perfectly reasonable alternative.
I hope it works out for you. I do like the model, particularly if you allow some rotation between clients for the developers (negative impact on short-term productivity, positive impact on long-term fit).
To extend the dating analogy a bit further: rather than putting all your eggs into a single basket, you can date multiple companies and find the best fit for you.
In this market, if you are a good developer, the company will most likely want to hire you. In my experience, it is the company that needs to court the developer.
In this market, if you are a good developer, the company will most likely want to hire you. In my experience, it is the company that needs to court the developer.
So do these companies using GroupTalent accept part time contracts? That would be a decent strategy to minimize risk. Even good developers may not be hired after the initial contract.
some of them do. We have had developers moonlight at other companies while keeping their day job to try out a new company before making a jump. It is less risk indeed
The ugly side of contract to hire is when offers aren't made. That is why it is difficult to convince perm salaried employees to take contract to hire jobs (I'm a recruiter) based on that risk alone. Unless the person was considering a contracting career anyway, the likelihood of accepting C-H employment is much lower than the basic perm job.
Hm, that's an interesting idea for solving the hard problem of matching talent with orga...
Oh wait, the article's just a PR piece for a startup using a deceptive title instead of something more honest like "GT takes the dating model to the recruiting process."
Oh wait, the article's just a PR piece for a startup using a deceptive title instead of something more honest like "GT takes the dating model to the recruiting process."
We are using the dating model to the recruiting process. Could not control the title of the article, but thx for pointing that out
I would use this, if it weren't restricted to people who make smartphone apps [1]. That seems to be an extremely narrow focus, even in Silicon Valley.
[1] This might not actually be the case but their info pages only talk about apps.
[1] This might not actually be the case but their info pages only talk about apps.
How about I just go in, work, do a good job, and live a life outside of work.
That's wonderful, if you have a decent place to work, but you don't necessarily start off that way. Did you read the article?
I guess I'm old fashioned, and the solution proposed in the article is just attempting to resolve a recent problem in a new way, rather than returning to what works in a tried and true fashion.
I think this is a much better idea: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/fixing-employ...
Essentially, it's a system that allows people to collect some stability income upfront by selling call options on future consulting services. This would also allow intermediaries (like GT) to arbitrage. For example, I'm damn sure there's someone out there who'd pay $750 per hour for my time (or, at least, could justify that much value) but I can't find that person-- and he probably only needs a few hours of my time, here and there. I'd be happy to sell a call option (strike $100/h) for $150/hour and let the option holder take most of the profit ($500) in order to have him doing my marketing and finding those $750/h high-value clients (which I can't).
The one way my consulting call options would differ is that the option holder only gets 95% of the profit; 5% goes back to the consultant. That's to make sure the consultant knows the actual price he or she is billed at.
Employment is already a call option, really. Take software engineers. The median of us is worth less than our salary, but the good ones are worth 5x and the great ones are 20-100x. That's hard to predict, because it's not only a factor of the individual, but also project/person fit and being assigned to high-yield work. Many software engineers at large companies could be rendering over $1 million per year in value, but are being held on evaluative Fourth Quadrant Work ( http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/fourth-quadra... ) while management decides whether or not to trust them with a real project. So there's already a call-option dynamic in place; it's just that right now, it works entirely out of employee favor. I want to fix that.
Essentially, it's a system that allows people to collect some stability income upfront by selling call options on future consulting services. This would also allow intermediaries (like GT) to arbitrage. For example, I'm damn sure there's someone out there who'd pay $750 per hour for my time (or, at least, could justify that much value) but I can't find that person-- and he probably only needs a few hours of my time, here and there. I'd be happy to sell a call option (strike $100/h) for $150/hour and let the option holder take most of the profit ($500) in order to have him doing my marketing and finding those $750/h high-value clients (which I can't).
The one way my consulting call options would differ is that the option holder only gets 95% of the profit; 5% goes back to the consultant. That's to make sure the consultant knows the actual price he or she is billed at.
Employment is already a call option, really. Take software engineers. The median of us is worth less than our salary, but the good ones are worth 5x and the great ones are 20-100x. That's hard to predict, because it's not only a factor of the individual, but also project/person fit and being assigned to high-yield work. Many software engineers at large companies could be rendering over $1 million per year in value, but are being held on evaluative Fourth Quadrant Work ( http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/fourth-quadra... ) while management decides whether or not to trust them with a real project. So there's already a call-option dynamic in place; it's just that right now, it works entirely out of employee favor. I want to fix that.
I was thinking of something similar for blogging for a while now.
The freelancer who works a gig at a company for a couple months before finally accepting a full time job from them is one of the oldest stories in consulting.
Done correctly, freelancing tends (strongly) to be more lucrative than full-time work, most especially in markets like this one, where sellers of talent have leverage over buyers. Why would anyone in a market like this concede anything to a company like GroupTalent? Serious question; I'm sure there's some reason.