> Nobody with options is going to accept multiple weeks of limbo in exchange for maybe having a job.
Let's say it does take 2 weeks to do 20 hours (2 hours a day), you would be compensated $4,000 for working 2 hours a day. Or if you're in between jobs you would have the time to do 20-30 hours in about 1 week and get paid $200 / hour.
I guess I'm just picky. I did freelance work for ~20 years and worked on 1 contract very part time for 2 years before deciding I wanted to try something new and work there full time. There was no interview process, I just signed a document and that was it.
I couldn't ever in a million years think about joining up at a place based on a few short interviews where 90% of the time is answering their interview questions. As someone who would be hired I really care about what I would be doing most days and what it's like to work there. Of course salary, benefits, TC, etc. is all important too but those are only numbers in the end.
I think this short contracting approach looks out more so for the interviewee. This "talented developer" can now pick and choose based on really knowing what it'll be like instead of hoping it's decent based on a couple of interviews.
I would have thought a highly talented person isn't concerned about jumping between interviews, getting hired, quitting after 3 weeks because it's not a good fit and repeating the process until they find a good match. Am I just way off base here? Do most folks bounce between jobs every few weeks (going through 5-7 interviews per job) until they find something they like?
> I would have thought a highly talented person isn't concerned about jumping between interviews, getting hired, quitting after 3 weeks because it's not a good fit and repeating the process until they find a good match. Am I just way off base here?
Way off base, in my experience. The vast majority of highly talented developers are rarely, if ever, actually on the market. They have multiple competing offers before ever walking out the door of their previous employer. There is no way they’re going to spend 30 hours of their time on maybe getting an offer from you. It doesn’t even matter if you pay them for it. Why would I take $4000 for maybe getting an offer, when I’m already deciding between multiple guaranteed offers? It’s just a huge waste of my time.
More importantly though, this process is strongly biased towards young, single people with no hobbies. You’ll likely never get a parent to commit to this kind of interview, because when I’m not working I’d much rather be spending that time with my family. Additionally, as a parent I’m concerned about stability because other people depending on me for food and shelter. Yanking me around for several weeks or months on a probationary period after which you can fire me even if I was doing everything great just screams amateurish to me. You’re not taking my employment seriously, so I’d rather go with one of the four offers already in hand.
My employer requires approval for any outside work. Every prior company except for a few early stage startups did as well.
I would not be able to moonlight to interview contract. I wouldn’t quit my current job for this.
This is great for unemployed people who don’t have offers from companies that hire without this process. It’s fantastic for people who suck and can’t find work and would love to futz around in these paid interviews for a few thousand.
Dude, no Bay Area engineer will take this deal. $200/hr is $100/hr in real post tax income. This is competitive with bartending on a Friday night.
If you’re not at $500/hr you’re not even competitive. You can be at $300/hr if you’re guaranteeing the job for a year but if it’s a one off you have to start way higher than that.
But free time is more precious. I’d target $1k/hr to play. I think break even is probably slightly less but not much.
For $200/hr I’d rather spend the time on my own life.
I got my last job with 5 h. And honestly, I’d rather do 7 h as an interview than 20 h over 2 w for $200/hr. I’m just thinking about this and the thought just makes me feel so bleh.
I think it’s the liability it incurs. A two week commitment. I just can’t see doing it for $4k. It’s just not worth it.
It’s like 4 calls for 4 hours on a consulting platform. Instead of 4 h I have to spend 20 h and spread over 2 w. This kills me.
> I think it’s the liability it incurs. A two week commitment. I just can’t see doing it for $4k. It’s just not worth it.
In my opinion it's the opposite of a liability. You're getting practical experience to know what it'll be like to work at that place. More hours ends up being better because each hour you put in gives you more information. It's an opportunity to see how things are run, get to know the team (if you pair'd with a few different people), get a feel for what you'll be doing, etc..
If you're worried about a 2 week commitment how are you not worried about general W2 employment where it's expected you'll be committing 40 hours a week until you either retire or die? The same applies for most 1099 contracts too where chances are you'll be putting in multiple weeks or months to complete a task.
You'd be able to exit the process if it's not a good fit using this method too. Perhaps even during an initial call before there's any type of contract mentioned.
Going for interviews while you're currently employed is also in addition to your job. It's just you're doing "real world" things in the contract based interview instead of answering technical questions or whiteboarding implementations.
If you post a job and get 600 applicants, are you going to offer all 600 of them this gig? If not, how do you filter that down to a more reasonable number (say 3-5)? Whatever you do, that is your interview process.
The initial pre-contract ~2 hour call would filter people out.
You can learn a ton about someone after generally chatting with them for 2 hours while staying decently focused on tech. People who are good at only talking can't bs their way through a type of call that's similar to how 2 folks might talk shop in a private conversation or a podcast. You can also get a good sense of how they think, how they act, how they think of others, etc.. In my opinion this is a much better initial filter than the usual interview questions.
Let's say it does take 2 weeks to do 20 hours (2 hours a day), you would be compensated $4,000 for working 2 hours a day. Or if you're in between jobs you would have the time to do 20-30 hours in about 1 week and get paid $200 / hour.
I guess I'm just picky. I did freelance work for ~20 years and worked on 1 contract very part time for 2 years before deciding I wanted to try something new and work there full time. There was no interview process, I just signed a document and that was it.
I couldn't ever in a million years think about joining up at a place based on a few short interviews where 90% of the time is answering their interview questions. As someone who would be hired I really care about what I would be doing most days and what it's like to work there. Of course salary, benefits, TC, etc. is all important too but those are only numbers in the end.
I think this short contracting approach looks out more so for the interviewee. This "talented developer" can now pick and choose based on really knowing what it'll be like instead of hoping it's decent based on a couple of interviews.
I would have thought a highly talented person isn't concerned about jumping between interviews, getting hired, quitting after 3 weeks because it's not a good fit and repeating the process until they find a good match. Am I just way off base here? Do most folks bounce between jobs every few weeks (going through 5-7 interviews per job) until they find something they like?