|
|
|
Grasshopper
 
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:43 PM
Points: 21,
Visits: 61
|
|
My husband lost his job last November, just before Thanksgiving. Early this summer, he was asked to take a contract position with a company because one of their employees was going to go on vacation. He would be trained by her for a week and then cover for her during her vacation. As it turned out, he showed her a few things and proved that he was a better fit for the company than she was. For example, her layouts would come back several times for changes to be made; his first several layouts came back approved by the client with no changes needed.
It was also "common knowledge" that this person was going to give her notice when she got back from vacation. This was good news for my husband who was hoping that this would turn into a permanent position. When she got back, she ended up asking instead to take a 2 week Leave of Absence so she could test drive this new job. A week after she asked for the LOA, she was told that she had to make a decision - stay or go. She ended up deciding to go and her "final day" was just after the July 4 holiday. It was looking better for my husband to get hired on permanently.
Two weeks pass and this woman is back at her old desk. Later that same day, my husband is told that he would no longer be needed and they ended his contract. He's back to looking for a job and hasn't had any luck.
I think you can tell by my real life example of job test driving that it only worked out for the "driver". Everyone else - the company that hired her, the company she left/came back to, my husband, and our family - was adversely affected by it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, March 12, 2010 5:24 AM
Points: 1,287,
Visits: 597
|
|
Interesting concept!
I don't think I'd drop a fulltime gig to go to a 1 week contract, but most companies have at lease some sort of probationary period. But it depends on the job I guess?
I do know alot of companies like to start out people as contractors then hire them full time if they work out.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:27 PM
Points: 178,
Visits: 578
|
|
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.
There's no such thing as dumb questions, only poorly thought-out answers...
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Veteran
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:48 AM
Points: 284,
Visits: 506
|
|
Jason Miller (8/19/2009)
The employers smell blood and are perfectly happy taking the desperate enough players. Problem is, once things improve, those desperate people will be among the first to flee.
I'm happy that I'm employed, but realistic enough to know that it could all change tomorrow/today. Hence the constant searching, looking, etc.
I have been looking around and if lucky may be interviewing soon. Again they dont want to pay so I am trying to negotiate on all of the other conditions. I said the same to the agent concerned I will take it if I can see the contract out on the rate I unlike others wont start what I cant finish. Plenty of other people will take any contract and then jump as soon as they get a better offer.
Ells.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:08 AM
Points: 408,
Visits: 532
|
|
Probation periods are ok, but have you ever heard of them getting used in a case where the person would not have been terminated anyways? I like the idea of a try before you buy. There is risk here for the employee and the to be employer however I don't feel it is outrageous. If you are looking for a new job it means you really do want a change if you are willing to put yourself out there. If you are wishy washy it will potentially keep you from job hopping. Many interviews include a test now. This is good, however I know i don't test well on paper. Give me a real true to life blown up SQL box and I will fix it very well. Give me a problem query and I will tune it. It goes along the same lines as a certification is often a ticket to an interview but not necessarily an ability to perform a task.
We started to do a 2-4 hour shadow as part of the interview more so that we could see how they interacted and their attention span. It lets you glean a bit from their character as well. A full day of that with a mix of 'Here, fix this' could be good.
I wonder though where the line is between interview and contractor. I would assume that if they are doing production work they would have to be a contractor. I don't know that anyone who is in need of a job would complain either way if it is only done as part of the final candidate process and not for every interview.
|
|
|
|
|
Old Hand
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 1:15 PM
Points: 380,
Visits: 307
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Rookie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:10 AM
Points: 40,
Visits: 36
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, March 08, 2010 9:49 AM
Points: 1,007,
Visits: 68
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:08 AM
Points: 408,
Visits: 532
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 7:45 AM
Points: 7,
Visits: 22
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
