I don't think you are thinking this through all the way. You are optimizing the transaction (hiring / taking a new job) rather than the process (a long, mutually beneficial relationship).
First, As an individual evaluating opportunities, how much more likely are you to learn if there is a not a good fit and therefore avoid months in a sub optimal job?
Second, the concept of a company still being at 99% or 100% productivity doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you leave a job, the company is at 0% productivity for that specific job you were filling.
Third, based on the comments, this will push certain people away from Automattic (e.g. "I don't do anything for free") and into the hands of the competitors. Automattic gets a double win: lower probability of hiring people who aren't willing to put in effort to find a good long term fit and they raise the probability that their competitor does. Awesome for Automattic and for the entire team, who gets to work with higher caliber people.
Finally, from a behavioral psych perspective this has some similarities the Zappos "pay you to leave us" approach. When someone goes through the effort to get the job, they are more likely to stick around AND feel happy about it. It's just human nature. Google "The Ikea Effect" for another example.
I'm legitimately curious how you arrive at the conclusion that the "I don't do anything for free" crowd is less likely to put in effort and find a good long term fit.
It seems that somehow in the startup community, doing things for free (unpaid overtime, unpaid internships, unpaid working 'interviews') is considered a badge of honor. I don't understand how that became the expected and accepted situation.
Being a 'sucker' is seen by many employers as a very desirable trait in an employee. From an employer point of view, why wouldn't you want the guy who happily works for free over the guy who is 'difficult' and insists on paid overtime for every hour after 40 hours a week.
And as someone looking for work who is just very good you need a way to differentiate yourself from everybody else who is also very good. A history of being willing to work ridiculous hours for free is a pretty good differentiator.
You're conflating two issues: "Unpaid overtime, unpaid internships" with "unpaid working interviews".
OT and internships are post acceptance of a work offer. Interviews should be used by the individual to find the best fit for themselves. If you think spending 10-20 hours making sure your top choice really is where you want to spend the next several thousand hours of your work life is "free work" I think you misunderstand the value that the individual gets out of the diligence.
"They can do the work at night or over the weekend, so they don’t have to leave their current job in the meantime."
If I spend night working, I'm tired next day. Not sure if it is shocking. If I spend weekend working, then I just lost most of my free/family time and not surprisingly, I'm tired during next week and produce less in my regular job.
So, the hourly rate is better be competitive with salary. Otherwise I would just consider them freeloaders trying to get some cheap labor.
On productivity: there's a difference between "I won't eat in X months from now if I don't find a job" (where X is sometimes very small), and "our income and payroll just decreased X%" (where X is often tiny). Let's be honest, beyond a couple dozen employees, the company hardly feels the impact of any particular layoff.
Your remark only applies where the job is one of a kind in the company (like the team of one or two who takes care of the 150 computers in the company). Most employees are not that critical, and their load is mostly shareable.
>> Second, the concept of a company still being at 99% or 100% productivity doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you leave a job, the company is at 0% productivity for that specific job you were filling.
You're assuming nobody picks up the slack and everyone is 100% utilized.
First, As an individual evaluating opportunities, how much more likely are you to learn if there is a not a good fit and therefore avoid months in a sub optimal job?
Second, the concept of a company still being at 99% or 100% productivity doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you leave a job, the company is at 0% productivity for that specific job you were filling.
Third, based on the comments, this will push certain people away from Automattic (e.g. "I don't do anything for free") and into the hands of the competitors. Automattic gets a double win: lower probability of hiring people who aren't willing to put in effort to find a good long term fit and they raise the probability that their competitor does. Awesome for Automattic and for the entire team, who gets to work with higher caliber people.
Finally, from a behavioral psych perspective this has some similarities the Zappos "pay you to leave us" approach. When someone goes through the effort to get the job, they are more likely to stick around AND feel happy about it. It's just human nature. Google "The Ikea Effect" for another example.