I absolutely love the idea of both sides being able to "try before you buy". Some jobs just suck for the employee and they wont know until they're a month or so in and it's a waste of effort for both parties to continue cordially expecting it to magically get better.
I think about half of the dev jobs I've had started with a 3 month probationary period, during which either myself or the employer can decide "never mind" without serious consequences.
As the new hire, I strongly prefer it for the exact reason you state: it's pretty hard to know if I'm a good fit in a company prior to actually working there. I've used the probationary period twice to get out of such mistakes.
As the hiring company, it's also a great thing for exactly the same reason but from the other side of the equation.
Lots of companies do this. I think more companies should join the bandwagon.
The idea is that you haven't really quit early, you've opted not to take the position. It's really more of an expectations thing than anything else. Nobody's going to be mad that you decided not to stay.
For the two times that I've opted not to stay, I just don't list those companies in my work history at all. I've never been asked about them in an interview and have never had to explain.
If I were to be asked, though, I'd just say something like "I decided that I wasn't a great fit and left during the trial period so that the company had the best chance of finding a more suitable candidate in a timely way."
that sounds great and i wish i could've done something like that in the past.
however i'm used to not quitting one job until i have the next one lined up (especially now that the interview process can take months to go from application to start date).
> i'm used to not quitting one job until i have the next one lined up
Well, that certainly affects your flexibility with this sort of thing. Many years ago, I learned that this stance is too limiting for me and sometimes encouraged me to take jobs that I shouldn't have taken.
Everyone is different, of course, but what works for me is to keep enough of a bankroll on hand that I can go at least 6 months without an income (Although these days I keep 1-2 years worth). That gives me the breathing room to be pickier about where I work.
How does “try before you buy” really help the candidate though? Many (most?) things that suck about a company can be (or are naturally) hidden in a two-week trial period.
I would love a view of the code and architecture and backlog I'd actually be working on to see if it's a huge ball of mud.
I have been fooled by companies selling other perks of the company, but the actual day-to-day was terrible because of terrible code.
I've also been sold on intentions to improve the code, but which never panned out after 6 months because shipping features was still the foreseeable priority. You can sometimes find honesty up front like "we know it sucks but we're going to improve it" but that goes back to selling intentions with no real solid date for that effort. It might work out, but it's a gamble for a candidate.
Plus you also get to see incidents, how they write tickets, and sprint volatility and how much stuff gets pulled in/pushed out because priorities change rapidly (there's probably a proper PM term but I can't be arsed).
It would stop a lot of people joining, realizing it sucks, then doing their year and getting something else. Then they might actually have to improve their shit instead of burying the facts.
Same, I've joined a number of orgs that seem to fit well with what I was looking for, but even the answers to my (rather pointed) questions during the interview and offer negotiation turned out to be outright lies that caused both of us to suffer a ton of wasted time and effort. TBYB would save a bunch of time, but so would people dropping the bullshit acts.
The "standard" probation period is 90 days. Outside of the modern silicon valley bubble, lots of companies hire with a probation period. Inside the bubble, the equivalent is contract-to-hire. But I really wish companies would just go back to the old days of probation.
My current job was contract-to-hire. Officially an 18 month period, but they converted me to employee after 3 months.
How it helps the candidate is exactly the same as how it helps the company: The interview process was a half hour phone screen, a 1-2 hour onsite with two people from the team, and a half hour followup call with the hiring manager who hadn't been able to join the onsite.
You know those week-long all-day interview processes many of us hate? Not necessary at all if the company is willing to give people a try and just move on if it doesn't work out.
You know how companies complain that they can't find good hires because their ridiculous interview process filters out the good ones and keeps the great ones from even applying? Having a sane short interview with probationary hire costs way less productive time and gets people onboard fast. And if someone doesn't work out, you can have another candidate take their place next week. It doesn't need to take months.
> Having a sane short interview with probationary hire costs way less productive time and gets people onboard fast.
That sounds like a ridiculous interview process which would filter me out from even applying. I'm not going to give up the job I already have and go through all the hassle that comes with a job change for the possibility of a new position.
Because you are afraid of being dropped out there into a months-long grind to find anything.
I'm saying that if tech companies hired like normal, sane companies, that would not be a fear.
Sure, they might not keep you through probation (and YOU have a lot of influence over that). But if not, you go start at another company. That's the benefit I'm talking about with not having stupid long, arduous interview processes: Not having stupid long, arduous interview processes.
