81–90 of 143 posts
Is it me or is there no author name? I mean, it could be deliberately anonymous but then that's usually noted. It was a really interesting read but I am probably just being grumpy and not a fan of medium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many companies hire contractors and then turn them into permanent employees.
I'm a startup founder and while this had been our initial approach to evaluating new engineers, our payroll company, PayChex, has specifically advised us to NOT do this. Why? Because it sends a red flag to the IRS to come after us for taxes for the period when they were a contractor. Crazily enough PayChex has told us that the real solution here is for us to "sign" the person over to a contracting company so we can h…
>Staffup Weekend put the lie to Stein’s pronouncement. As Nicholson later wrote me, “The fact that people stayed for 48 hours to work on something put them head and shoulders above the thousands of applications we receive, because the participants are people who show up and see things through.” And this event is an attempt to make showing up for a 48 hour 'work trial' a norm. This favors the younger, single populatio…
It especially made sense at this company because they were using an obscure coding platform and needed to train everybody from scratch. So you were actually learning the language a bit while performing the test. Mentors went around and asked you your thought process as you worked an gave some helpful nudges.
I did get the job and to this day it was the best office environment of my life. I wish all tech companies were as well run as that one.
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?
Extreme case: Hire the A-team of programming http://atsytp.strikingly.com/
Also, negative points for not using the original A-Team in their background image.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would guess if you meet your tax obligations and employment law obligations you should be ok. If its an audit red flag, that's a risk even if you aren't breaking the tax rules associated with that transaction -- it increases the risk associated with any tax rules you might, knowingly or not, be breaking. Further, if you are using it to vet potential permanent employees in working conditions as much like the ones…
What you say makes perfect sense, but in that context how do "contract to hire" places do what they do legally?
Direct contract-to-hire is also done, but its fairly frequently not done legally, which is why it gets additional scrutiny.
I strongly believe that hiring should be based on data. Based on the following 5 factors: 1.Intellect 2.Values 3.Motivations 4.Behaviours 5.Experience With these factors you can determine a persons Cultural Fit and predicted future performance. In fact, you could automate this through technology. For example, for predicting future performance we could test the high performers in our company then we have a template fo…
I strongly believe that hiring should be based on data. Based on the following 5 factors: 1.Intellect 2.Values 3.Motivations 4.Behaviours 5.Experience With these factors you can determine a persons Cultural Fit and predicted future performance. In fact, you could automate this through technology. For example, for predicting future performance we could test the high performers in our company then we have a template fo…
1.Intellect 2.Values 3.Motivations 4.Behaviours 5.Experience All of those are extremely subjective. And trying to replicate your existing staff will give you an unimaginative company of yes-men.
"We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess." Something overlooked is the millions (billions?) of non-productive labor hours that go into the failed traditional hiring process, when even the smartest guys in the room have to admit that upon statistical analysis its all a waste of time. That's an enormous staggering financial drain on the economy. Overall, across the entire economy, the overall minimum co…
Google made the classic mistake of using the interviewer as the predictor of interest. Meanwhile, decades of research has shown it's not who does the asking but how and what you ask. For example, structured interviews are about 50% more predictive of job performance (r = .51) compared to unstructured interviews (i.e., the way almost everyone interviews; r = .38).
So why did Google run this experiment when they had an army of Industrial/Organizational Psychologists who already knew the research? They wanted to collect their own data and test the theories on their own employees, which I encourage and applaud.
I strongly believe that hiring should be based on data. Based on the following 5 factors: 1.Intellect 2.Values 3.Motivations 4.Behaviours 5.Experience With these factors you can determine a persons Cultural Fit and predicted future performance. In fact, you could automate this through technology. For example, for predicting future performance we could test the high performers in our company then we have a template fo…
Source: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...
I didn't even read the story after this gem: "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." Now, what's wrong with this reasoning? :-)
It takes the base rate of successful performance into account.