> Whenever possible (and it’s almost always possible), have someone do a day or two of work with you before you hire her; you can do this at night or on the weekends.
No. Absolutely not.
If a candidate really is as good as you think he/she is, they already likely has a full time job that they're perfectly happy with (as you already well know):
> Often, to get great people, you have to poach. They’re never looking for jobs, so don’t limit your recruiting to people that are looking for jobs.
They might have other compelling offers, and they'll certainly have personal projects, hobbies, and people that are more worthy of their time than this insulting little game. The developers who know what they're worth won't put up with this. Why are you trying to hire the ones who will?
Hire fast / fire fast is fine, but seeing a founder do this is a big red flag for me. It screams indecisiveness, lack of confidence, and mediocrity. Does he try to pull this stunt with everyone he hires? What am I supposed to think of the rest of the team? Can I get behind someone whose hiring process is so driven by fear that he's willing to miss out on the best candidates?
This tactic might help you hire a decent candidate over a mediocre or a terrible one, but you'll be missing out on (or even creating ill will toward) the great candidates. It's already hard enough to get them on board -- why would you make this harder on yourself?
Sorry, but speaking as a software engineer who does have a bit of talent, I disagree with you in saying that this type of audition exercise is below me. We complain and complain and complain as an industry about how the interview process that The Big Boys still use (which is essentially just a pop quiz of vocabulary terms at its core) is broken. Why is this not a better alternative?
You wouldn't pitch this as "hey, I'm still not sure about you so I'm going to ask you to do X to prove your worth" - though it seems that's the interpretation you're getting from this. It's less a question of raw skill than it is a question of how all the different subtleties that factor into effective teamwork would play out when you're working on something together. There are so many vectors that are in play when it comes to actually working with someone tells you so much more than just an interview will.
> I disagree with you in saying that this type of audition exercise is below me.
> We complain [...] is broken. Why is this not a better alternative?
It's not a better alternative because many of the best developers in Silicon Valley don't disagree with me. There are many reasons for this -- not everyone is a carefree recent college grad, and many people can't afford the luxury of taking the time off to do something like this. You might argue that it's a paid trial, but often "can't afford" has more to do with family obligations, time commitments, and mental bandwidth than money, even if they'd be more than willing/able to push hard in a start-up environment if it were their full-time job. Many of the best developers aren't willing to leave their current job or take time off without the commitment of a written offer. They may be more risk averse than someone younger with fewer obligations, for many of the same reasons outlined above.
But the most important reason why this is not a better alternative is that any developer who doesn't want to put up with this doesn't have to put up with it, since it's by far not the norm. Any developer who feels this way and is actually any good would have an easy time of finding an equal or better opportunity elsewhere.
> You wouldn't pitch this as "hey, I'm still not sure about you so I'm going to ask you to do X to prove your worth" - though it seems that's the interpretation you're getting from this.
It really doesn't matter how the company tries to spin this. In the current environment, the best developers in Silicon Valley can work wherever they want. By using a paid trial as policy, these companies are (willfully or not) turning away some of the best developers that they interview, for very little gain.
tl;dr: It doesn't matter whether or not you perceive this exercise as being below you. If a large enough contingent of the best developers won't put up with it, the companies who use the exercise are losing out.
> They may be more risk averse than someone younger with fewer obligations, for many of the same reasons outlined above.
Arguably, if they're risk averse they have no business in the startup game. But that's neither here nor there.
I see where you're coming from. I guess when I read it I understood it as "Hey, let's get together for an evening an work on something - I'll even pay you with it if it's for our company" type thing, which sounds entirely reasonable. Then again, taking a PTO day to do a trial day of work has a really minimal level of risk to it.
I think there's a happy medium between where the industry is now and the line you're unhappy with crossing. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. :)
>Then again, taking a PTO day to do a trial day of work has a really minimal level of risk to it.
You're not going to find much support for that idea among people in demand. I'd interpret that as a huge red flag that this person does not respect my time. Also, imagine you're applying at a few different places and they all do this. Suddenly, you've wasted your vacation days on working harder without getting paid.
I have done some interviewing and such of candidates at my current place. I sincerely could not imagine asking a candidate with a job to spend three trial days (or a single day) coding with us. I think it's disrespectful. Not everyone who is looking for work is unhappy where they are. I don't want to put anyone in a position where they have to choose between respecting their current employer and seeing if they're a good fit with us.
Hiring has always been a two way street, but in technology the scales are usually tipped against the hiring company. It's simply a numbers game -- there are far more mediocre and poor developers than good ones, and in the current environment, the good ones can basically get hired to work wherever they want.
The co-working trial is an attempt to make the scale more favorable for the company. I can understand the desire for this, but in the current environment, it's almost guaranteed to backfire, as the best developers simply won't put up with it. No amount of wishful thinking on the part of the company is going to change this.
> I can understand the desire for this, but in the current environment, it's almost guaranteed to backfire, as the best developers simply won't put up with it.
An awful lot of developers are willing to put up with inane algorithm tests.
If I was hiring, I'd be skeptical of any developer who would prefer five hours of whiteboarding to some sort of trial arrangement, or even a sufficiently complete take-home coding test that is similar in nature to the work they'd be performing as an employee.
>If I was hiring, I'd be skeptical of any developer who would prefer five hours of whiteboarding to some sort of trial arrangement,
In theory I would prefer the trial arrangement, but in practice, if I'm employed, it's not an option unless I'm totally and absolutely convinced that you run the perfect company for me.
Which you probably do not.
If I'm unemployed and searching for a job (which sometimes happens: I like to take 6 month long holidays between leaving an old job and starting a new one), then I think it's a fantastic idea. Provided it is paid.
> ...it's not an option unless I'm totally and absolutely convinced that you run the perfect company for me...Which you probably do not.
If you're employed and seeking employment elsewhere, for whatever reason, why would you even waste your time interviewing with a company that you didn't think had the potential to be a very good fit?
I haven't personally done a trial arrangement, but it's definitely intriguing. I absolutely loathe the 5 hour whiteboarding tests whenever I have to do them, and usually I end up fretting about it the day before and show up having not slept an iota.
>>Hire fast / fire fast is fine, but seeing a founder do this is a big red flag for me. It screams indecisiveness, lack of confidence, and mediocrity. Does he try to pull this stunt with everyone he hires? What am I supposed to think of the rest of the team? Can I get behind someone whose hiring process is so driven by fear that he's willing to miss out on the best candidates?
At the startup stage, someone who is mediocre or outright bad can cause so much damage that they can sink you. That is why hiring is the one area where you should be very risk-averse.
No. Absolutely not.
If a candidate really is as good as you think he/she is, they already likely has a full time job that they're perfectly happy with (as you already well know):
> Often, to get great people, you have to poach. They’re never looking for jobs, so don’t limit your recruiting to people that are looking for jobs.
They might have other compelling offers, and they'll certainly have personal projects, hobbies, and people that are more worthy of their time than this insulting little game. The developers who know what they're worth won't put up with this. Why are you trying to hire the ones who will?
Hire fast / fire fast is fine, but seeing a founder do this is a big red flag for me. It screams indecisiveness, lack of confidence, and mediocrity. Does he try to pull this stunt with everyone he hires? What am I supposed to think of the rest of the team? Can I get behind someone whose hiring process is so driven by fear that he's willing to miss out on the best candidates?
This tactic might help you hire a decent candidate over a mediocre or a terrible one, but you'll be missing out on (or even creating ill will toward) the great candidates. It's already hard enough to get them on board -- why would you make this harder on yourself?