There is a lot to like about this style of hiring and it is similar to processes I have endorsed before. There is one unfortunate problem with it though. It rules out developers who have moonlighting clauses, which is a very large percentage of them (even if they don't know it).
At the end of the day the only system I've been able to think of that gets around many of these problems is a contract hire (3/6 months depending on prevailing employment conditions) that at the end of it has a lump sum payout of the equivalent time (so a 6 month contract would end with a lump sum payout of another 6 months) regardless of if the contracted employee continues with the company (either by their choice or the companies).
The advantage of this system is that it will not remove candidates from the pool who would normally not take on the risk of a contract position, yet allows for an honest assessment of the candidate/employer relationship.
This seems expensive up front but is often just accelerating bonus payments for employees that are kept, and is a small price to pay for removing bad employees quickly.
At the end of the day the only system I've been able to think of that gets around many of these problems is a contract hire (3/6 months depending on prevailing employment conditions) that at the end of it has a lump sum payout of the equivalent time (so a 6 month contract would end with a lump sum payout of another 6 months) regardless of if the contracted employee continues with the company (either by their choice or the companies).
The advantage of this system is that it will not remove candidates from the pool who would normally not take on the risk of a contract position, yet allows for an honest assessment of the candidate/employer relationship.
This seems expensive up front but is often just accelerating bonus payments for employees that are kept, and is a small price to pay for removing bad employees quickly.