We already have this extended trial period in tech, it’s called an internship, and responsible companies pay interns. Some internships come through university co-op programs, some through organizations that set this up for people following non-traditional career paths, and some companies “roll their own.”
But these positions are overwhelmingly for people breaking into the field. They have much to gain, and very little to lose by working for a company for three months with an uncertain expectation of a full-time job.
Now consider hiring an experienced worker who is out of a job. If Alice offers them a contract with the company having an option to turn it into full-time, while Bob offers them full-time work with the understanding that a major screw-up would lead to dismissal during a probationary period, Bob’s offer is much lower risk.
Finally, consider an experienced worker with a job. For a non-hypothetical example, they’re working at a famous name, with options, and a YC startup that has grown to 200 employEes recruits them.
It’s going to be very difficult to get them to walk away from guaranteed employment that feeds their children, for a temporary gig with no equity participation And the understanding that it’s an extended job interview.
—-
The above focuses on the candidate’s risk/reward calculation. What about the company?
Well, the least experienced person has the greatest uncertainty. They might be very smart, but unable to work well with people. How would we know without giving them temporary work with people?
The most experienced person has the least overall uncertainty. They “brought the receipts.” Without arguing about how they should be interviewed/tested, if they aren’t a completely toxic person, if they have a non-fatal weakness that pops up, it can probably be managed to be fixed, or accommodated.
The employer’s risk goes down as the candidate’s experience goes up. Sure, it would be a bed of roses if the company could hire senior people on a one-year contract and see how all the intangibles work out, but that usually isn’t necessary, and it’s not going to happen often enough to operationalize that as part of the process.
—-
TL;DR:
There is no one-size-fits-all approach that fits all levels of experience, and also scales to large numbers of hires, and also is repeatable.
But the kernel of what you suggest works well for the sweet-spot of high-uncertainty and low risk to the candidate.
But these positions are overwhelmingly for people breaking into the field. They have much to gain, and very little to lose by working for a company for three months with an uncertain expectation of a full-time job.
Now consider hiring an experienced worker who is out of a job. If Alice offers them a contract with the company having an option to turn it into full-time, while Bob offers them full-time work with the understanding that a major screw-up would lead to dismissal during a probationary period, Bob’s offer is much lower risk.
Finally, consider an experienced worker with a job. For a non-hypothetical example, they’re working at a famous name, with options, and a YC startup that has grown to 200 employEes recruits them.
It’s going to be very difficult to get them to walk away from guaranteed employment that feeds their children, for a temporary gig with no equity participation And the understanding that it’s an extended job interview.
—-
The above focuses on the candidate’s risk/reward calculation. What about the company?
Well, the least experienced person has the greatest uncertainty. They might be very smart, but unable to work well with people. How would we know without giving them temporary work with people?
The most experienced person has the least overall uncertainty. They “brought the receipts.” Without arguing about how they should be interviewed/tested, if they aren’t a completely toxic person, if they have a non-fatal weakness that pops up, it can probably be managed to be fixed, or accommodated.
The employer’s risk goes down as the candidate’s experience goes up. Sure, it would be a bed of roses if the company could hire senior people on a one-year contract and see how all the intangibles work out, but that usually isn’t necessary, and it’s not going to happen often enough to operationalize that as part of the process.
—-
TL;DR:
There is no one-size-fits-all approach that fits all levels of experience, and also scales to large numbers of hires, and also is repeatable.
But the kernel of what you suggest works well for the sweet-spot of high-uncertainty and low risk to the candidate.