> I tell people that the worst case scenario is that they use a week of vacation, but because of the extra pay they can take a nicer vacation later on.
I don't know about you guys, but if you're only getting 2 or 3 weeks of vacation a year, I think it's pretty insane to waste up to half of it on testing out a job. You need your vacation days for, you know, vacation, for your long-term mental sanity.
For a candidate who's already employed, that comes across as a completely unreasonable request. I mean, imagine if you interviewed at two companies like this -- you get no vacation that year! Ugh.
The point, I think, is that by the time you get to "trial week" phase you are pretty much set on joining, and it's just to avoid complete disasters. So the odds of you burning through two of these is incredibly low, and it's worth it anyway, since if you actually ended up not getting through trial week you are avoiding what could have been several years of a dysfunctional work environment, not to mention all the other opportunity costs of moving, etc.
If that's true, the companies running "trial weeks" and other temp-to-perm arrangements should be able to quote the retention rate they have from these programs. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they hover around 95%, or in some cases even 100%.
But then, I'd respond to that by asking what temp-to-perm is actually buying you, in exchange for the expense of filtering your candidate pool down to people willing to do you a favor in the hottest seller's market for talent in 10 years.
Out of 50+ product, engineering and marketing folks, only 2 have ever left. We have multiple people that have been around for 5+ years. So yes, amazing retention and team cohesion is certainly a by-product of the trial week.
Sorry, I was referring to the outcome of the trial week itself, because I hadn't caught the end of the article where you said the outcome was a 66% accept.
You've built what is by all accounts an excellent team and an enviable workplace, so it is with all possible respect that I say that I'm discouraged that you're employing a temp-to-perm arrangement in your hiring practice --- but if it's working for you, I'm not sure what else I can say.
I certainly respect your point of view. In my mind this isn't a temp-to-hire -- that would be something more lengthy, maybe a 2-4 week temp period.
So many people are frustrated with the traditional interview process, and we think it's pretty broken, too. This trial week is really about being able to assess all the things you can't in an interview.
Also, since a majority of our team is relocating from elsewhere, it's a big decision for them and it's turned out to be very valuable on their end as well.
> Also, since a majority of our team is relocating from elsewhere, it's a big decision for them and it's turned out to be very valuable on their end as well.
This wasn't addressed in the original article other than the mention of paying for flights, and this relocation angle is probably a bit more of a factor than you probably expect regarding the willingness of candidates (95%) agreeing to do it.
If someone is moving to a new city, getting a paid trip to visit the city for a week while considering a job is a win. A candidate could even potentially interview off-hours with other companies on their dime, while exploring what the city has to offer and look into housing, schooling, etc.
If this trial week was mostly local candidates, the 95% being willing to sacrifice vacation time would be much more surprising (and potentially more risky, since I'm assuming most candidates aren't telling their current employers that they are doing this).
If these are mostly out-of-area candidates, it's not all that surprising that they would be willing to take a paid week of work and a free trip to see whether relocating makes sense for them.
Most wouldn't accept a position in a new city without getting the chance to look at the city, and what better way than a free trip?
"Our hire rate out of trial week is around 66%, which feels like the right level."
66% seems quite low for that kind of arrangement, enough to be discouraged from applying in the first place unless you're currently jobless. I can definitely understand the 90-100% temp-permanent programs though.
You'd be surprised the reasons it doesn't work out though. It's almost never intelligence. It's usually that someone was a huge dick, or was really lazy. It's just so strange to me that you couldn't keep your inner asshole at bay for one week, but better to know sooner than later.
To play a devil's advocate: it might be better if you DON'T "keep your inner asshole at bay for one week". If those people didn't like the way they were, they would have changed themselves already anyway. On the other hand, pretending to be something they are not just gets them to places where they are not appreciated for what they are - so why would someone want to do that?
The point is, evaluation works both ways. Did they fail your test or did you fail theirs? :)
I don't see why that's playing devil's advocate. This is exactly the point of the program, and arguably its most important use case. Whether you frame the failure as "we didn't hire him because he's an asshole" or as (from his pov) "i just couldn't stop myself being a dick, their company culture was annoying" -- the employer has achieved his intended outcome, which is to filter out bad fits for the company.
Doesn't the article state that 34% don't make it? That's a pretty high failure rate for a trial period where both parties were already set on making it work.
In Netherland, there's a legal 1 month trial period for any new job, but it's extremely rare that someone will be fired in that month.
Welcome to the US. 2 weeks is common for lower end jobs. 3 weeks is typical for professionals starting a new job. I receive 5 weeks, plus 2 for sick time, and peers at other companies are astounded by it. I've also been at my employer for 10 years - I started at 3 weeks.
Of course, my Scottish relatives think it's completely normal. And I tend to agree. With only 3 weeks of leave, it's really hard to take 2 weeks off in a block. And I find a 2 week vacation is really required to relax and let go of work.
I'm amazed that people can live with only 2 weeks vacation. In Netherland, 5 weeks is the minimum (though it's rare for companies to go above that minimum), and personally I still don't think that's enough.
As a freelancer I'm glad I can take as much vacation as I like.
Honest question here: Why do the vast majority of people don't first quit their previous job, and then use the time to interview conveniently at many companies? That would allow this trial-week arrangement for most candidates, and that actually sounds better for the candidates too - they don't want to join the wrong (for them) company.
I know U.S. health insurance is based around the current employer - is that the reason? Or a meager one month of salary, which you can probably offset just by getting offers from more companies which will determine your salary probably for the next 2 years at least - if money is the reason.
Also, what happens if the candidate's contract with their employer says they can't do other work while they're employed there? What happens if the contract says - any IP you create, we own, unless we clear this in advance?
All in all, the trial-week arrangement sounds to me like it's better for all sides, assuming people are willing to first quit, then look for another job. A lot of people end up miserable at their jobs, so why doesn't everyone do it?
Quitting your existing job first increases the risk. What if you don't find another job? One month of meagre salary quickly turns into six months, then a year, and that becomes a lot of money. If you have a job that makes you miserable, it might even suggest that you do not have many prospects to choose from, which makes the risk even greater.
Recruiter here. Looking for a job while unemployed reduces your leverage and to at least some degree can potentially reduce how attractive you appear to an employer. If you have incredible skills it doesn't matter much, but having no job gives the appearance that no one wants you. If you quit your job without having another one lined up, that can give the impression that you make rash decisions that are perhaps not very wise.
It's best to have a job while looking for one, but depending on who you are it won't always be a huge detriment to be unemployed during a search.
I look at this way... If you're 2/3 of the way through the process (66% pass rate) and you think there's a high chance of leaving your current job, it's worth the risk. You can always take a 2 week break between jobs.
What I like about this is it also sells the company on the candidate. They have a full week to convince people they like to stick around.
Companies vary greatly regarding willingness to grant unpaid vacation time on top of the vacation provided. The reason against unpaid vacation is there is work to be done, and theoretically if everyone took some unpaid vacation they'd need to hire more workers, and the cost of hiring and training each worker is significant.
Unpaid vacation, in my experience, is most often given when a job seeker starts a new position and has travel plans in the first few months. If the hire hasn't accrued their vacation time (and doesn't want to burn it all up right away), an unpaid leave is usually a good option.
I think this trial week is mostly for hiring fresh out of college candidates. They can spare the week, and it makes sense there. It's not such a good idea for people who already have a job.
I don't know about you guys, but if you're only getting 2 or 3 weeks of vacation a year, I think it's pretty insane to waste up to half of it on testing out a job. You need your vacation days for, you know, vacation, for your long-term mental sanity.
For a candidate who's already employed, that comes across as a completely unreasonable request. I mean, imagine if you interviewed at two companies like this -- you get no vacation that year! Ugh.