Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#31

Post by nodata »

mseebach wrote: post #27
pluma wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? That's actually one of the reasons I find the idea of a guaranteed basic income so promising. The biggest thing making an "everybody freelances" world a dystopia rather than a eutopia (sic) is that it would eliminate any semblance of income stability. Static long-term contracts would still be an option because of the reli…

The concept you're looking for is "savings". Contractors and freelancers charge a premium to compensate for the lack of income stability. If that premium is saved up, you get stability.

Except some freelancers don't seem to be very good at the savings part.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#32

Post by mattlutze »

whiddershins wrote: post #6

What a bizarre and compelling story. Glad to have read it. Meanwhile I think the hiring problem/solution is staring us right in the face. What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? Isn't it perhaps weird that there is an assumption companies and employees should bind their fates together, and, if it doesn't work out, one or both parties is pretty screwed because of…

I don't particularly enjoy the hiring process. It takes a lot of time, which is time I can't be building.

I think I would really, really not enjoy having to potentially hire a brand-new crop of people, or renegotiate every contract on my team, every time we hit a gatecheck, major deliverable, project checkpoint, etc.

The current concept of full-time work means I as an employee don't have to worry so much about not having a job in a week (it takes time to hire a new me, too), and also that the people I hire likely aren't going to disappear on me in a week, as well.

Moving to a "everyone short-term contracts" model means I have less security that this team I've spent a lot of my time trying to build may end up not being here in 6 months. It means my team members have less security that the coworker of theirs who is specializing in ____ will be here in 6 months.

Probationary periods in new hire contracts exist for that "this isn't a mutually good fit" issue.

Ultimately it feels like an "everyone is a contractor" default will end up increasing overhead for the company, reducing productive time available for people involved in hiring (my developers have to interview a new hire, as well), and less security for both the contractor and the employer.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#33

Post by mattlutze »

lordnacho wrote: post #10

One thing I've wondered is why companies hire people one at a time. Barely anyone works alone on anything, yet to decide whether to hire someone, you invite people individually through a funnel process and expect them to be able to work together. The best teams are not necessarily the ones with the most Ivy Leaguers on them. Why don't more companies let the applicants self-organise, and then hire the best teams?

I want to build my own team, not have to take a "best of what I can find" pre-built team.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#34

Post by joncrocks »

JackMorgan wrote: post #29
raving-richard wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were ever in charge of hiring for many types of position (whether programming, or writing, or such), I think I would do something similar. The advertisement will say "looking for full time X (must complete initial contract period of Y weeks)" or similar. The best way to see if you like someone's work, is to see it. So, hire them for up to three months (telling them that this is what is happening, and why, and be…

Very few people would leave a job for a "chance" at another. So you'll limit yourself to only people currently without work, which is a much smaller pool and likely to be filled with a disproportionate number of recently fired people.

As well as 'not so recently' fired people.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#35

Post by jarek »

johan_larson wrote: post #23
whiddershins wrote: post #6

What a bizarre and compelling story. Glad to have read it. Meanwhile I think the hiring problem/solution is staring us right in the face. What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? Isn't it perhaps weird that there is an assumption companies and employees should bind their fates together, and, if it doesn't work out, one or both parties is pretty screwed because of…

Another option would be to hire fairly leniently, but prune ruthlessly and early. In most jurisdictions, there is a trial period of sorts, typically 60 to 90 days, during which it is easy to fire an employee, before various rules about dismissal kick in. As far as I know, most companies don't really make use of this, except in really serious cases. But assuming it is in fact easy to fire during this period, we could…

How long until you run out of applicants willing to take the risk of having to restart their job search after they've settled down?

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#36

Post by aaron695 »

exo762 wrote: post #15

> In 2012, for example, consulting firm Leadership IQ announced it had tracked 20,000 new hires over time and discovered that 46% of them had failed within 18 months. In other words, most recruiting practices are about as effective as a coin toss. This does not take into account amount of candidates that have been rejected.

Yes, it's a nonsense statement.

Like the Google stories, which also are not true.

Shame, the Staffup Weekend in itself would have been an interesting writeup.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#37

Post by crdoconnor »

aswerty wrote: post #8
crdoconnor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many companies hire contractors and then turn them into permanent employees.

While that sounds like a reasonable hiring approach most of the contractors I know (in the UK and Ireland) wouldn't take permanency because contractors earn significantly more. Maybe it's a bit different in the US though.

I was the same. There's an easy enough solution to that for the company, however.

I knew a few contractors who did take the full time role despite the lower pay.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#38

Post by uknj »

nodata wrote: post #31
mseebach wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept you're looking for is "savings". Contractors and freelancers charge a premium to compensate for the lack of income stability. If that premium is saved up, you get stability.

Except some freelancers don't seem to be very good at the savings part.

If that were the case, one could hardly blame it on that particular hiring process/point of view.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#39

Post by ErrantX »

whiddershins wrote: post #6

What a bizarre and compelling story. Glad to have read it. Meanwhile I think the hiring problem/solution is staring us right in the face. What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? Isn't it perhaps weird that there is an assumption companies and employees should bind their fates together, and, if it doesn't work out, one or both parties is pretty screwed because of…

> What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default?

I've heard this line a lot. The interesting thing is that there are areas, even inside tech, that this is the default. And it's nto necessarily better. For example, steelworks or the oil industry. A pretty significant portion of the employees in these fields (including IT sectors) are contractors. They have minimal job security and limited motivation to excel (even in the steel industry where perks are fairly decent).

I know this empirically because whenever we have a job opening there is a queue of people from these industries looking for a more stable role, even if it means a pay cut. Which somewhat gets to the heart of it - this is about job security!

What you are describing works well when you look at the top 0.5%, or maybe less, of employees. For the rest, the current system has evolved to favour the employee and provide stability for them month-to-month.

Now don't get me wrong; it's imperfect, and we need to evolve the system again! But short-term working is not a coverall solution IMO.

Post reply on HN