I am very surprised that the number of people who opt out of the trial week is only 5% -- clearly it's working for the company, but personally I'd be hard-pressed to give up a week's vacation time.
Still, if you were to do such a work-trial program, I can't imagine a better way to do it than this.
That was my thought. Especially with a family, vacation time is too important to spend working. While everything they pay for and do is nice, I wouldn't be willing to give it up to try and get a job. (Just one job, that is. If I really wanted to leave, I might spend some vacation time interviewing at many places, but 1 place for 1 week seems a little reckless in that circumstance.)
Most age discrimination isn't overt or explicit. It's "cultural". They don't care if you're 45, but most of these VC-funded startups don't want to hire and promote people who (a) don't drink, (b) show up before 10:00 and leave before 7:00, (c) never discuss their sex lives and work and avoid others' disclosures thereof, and (d) aren't interested in moving into management, which being a 45-year-old programmer implies. But there are a few especially juvenile older people that I've seen fit in to the VC-funded culture.
Also, older programmers (even those who've declined management by choice) threaten the lie on which the VC-funded world stands, which is that being a subordinate engineer (and getting jack-shit equity) at 22 is a sure path to being an exec at 27, a founder at 31, and an investor (either an angel, meaning "rich", or a VC, meaning "given a soft landing") at 35. The brutal career age-grading comes from a need to exclude those who refute the lie of promised progress.
While I wouldn't so hastily accuse Weebly of age discrimination, I think this raises an interesting discussion around hiring practice:
The logistics of certain hiring practices may be themselves biased in terms of age (or other factors), which is questionably ethical. This trial week seems to discriminate against those who cannot trivially sacrifice vacation time (employees with families, for example). There are others, too; I've heard other founders scheduling interviews with candidates late into the evening or night, even on weekends. With kids to tend to, that would be an incredibly frustrating situation.
Nothing is quite so black and white that these acts are themselves evil, but I do hope companies aren't becoming culturally biased. If you're flexible with your policies, then perhaps you'll do fine. With that said, there's something to be said to sticking to some conventions in the interest of not alienating candidates
We try to be as flexible as possible. We have plenty of people with families that work 8-6pm. If you had kids and couldn't make the trial week because of that, we'd figure something else out. But we've had plenty of people go through a trial week with families and it hasn't been a huge burden.
Especially when relocating their families, it's actually a positive -- you end up feeling much more comfortable this is a place you will be at for a while before making that commitment.
there are no normal hours. some people come from 7:00 to 17:00, others come from 12:00 to 20:00. it's entirely flexible and there are no cultural pressures to work certain hours either.
I am personally willing to do a trial week at a company that I would really like to work for, because I don't like the traditional 1-hour stress-filled interview, and also because it'd let me evaluate the company and co-workers over a period of time. (Many companies are uglier on the inside that they would seem if you go by their web presence, and a few hour interview.)
But I can think of many awesome people I've hired over the hires who have other life commitments and would have passed if we'd used a trial-week policy for hiring.
So it's tricky, but I think you can pull this off if you're an "in demand" company with a good funnel of candidates; you would simply have to live with many excellent candidates passing on your company.
Highly agree - vacation time is extremely valuable to me as a Marine reservist since I often have to spend it for my two weeks of annual training, so if a prospective company asked me to do that, I'd thank them for their time, and part ways unless they were willing to forego that requirement in their decision making. I believe it's unreasonable to ask that time and money of people unless they were willing to compensate me for the time missed at my job.
Are you asking that they pay you both for working for them and also for missed time at your job? According to the post they pay you for working for them for a week.
I don't know. It isn't a breach of my employment contract so I would not be a very good source on this matter. You could contact them directly and see how they resolve it (or if they even can).
And that doesn't reimburse you for the forced vacation you have to spend. It also may be impossible depending on the contract, as it would be a breach of my current one.
Even if it weren't the case, you're still giving up a significant amount in a form you cannot get back. Paid vacation is not easily come by, and the company is asking the people to work during that time? It is a process biased against those who do not have the luxury of taking a week off on a whim.
By your response I think you inferred I had some follow up commentary prepared that I didn't (and don't) have. I really just want to know: What do you think would be reasonable compensation for the week of vacation spent?
I'm not sure that this is an issue, especially if the conversion rate is in the 70% range quoted in the article. You're getting double-paid for the trial week (from old job and new job), so just take a week of 'vacation' after you quit and before you start the new job.
The only issue is for those who don't get an offer or don't accept the offer, which is why this is (or should be) reserved for very late in the interview process.
I am curious how they figure that out - how many people 'declined to continue the interview process' but didn't say 'it's because you have a trial week'?
In larger companies, it's not uncommon to offer a 3 month contracting trial period. That gives the prospective employee a more stable income, and gives the employer a much better idea of work performance.
I've seen people that have been great in week 1, showing initiative, energy, insights into the problem, etc. But by week 3, their insights are gone, their initiative has shrank, and their energy is wiped - despite everyone working to support their success.
What I'm saying is, it's easy to put in one great week of work - especially when everything is new, and you're amazing people with the speed at which you pick things up. After 3 - 4 weeks, you'll see the real employee emerge.
Unless they aren't being upfront about their hiring process (in which case you could argue they are being deceitful), I imagine they number is greater than 5%. If you do not apply because of that requirement, you aren't getting counted.
I really like this idea, and Weebly seems to be doing everything to make it as easy on the applicant as possible.
Outside of financial compensation, though, I hope that companies that do this are very flexible on the scheduling of the week of work.
I know that it would be difficult to take a week off of work at the wrong time without burning too many bridges. I try to give my company plenty of notice on vacation (months sometimes) so that they can plan ahead for my absence. It's a two way street, since they try and give me plenty notice for when I'm absolutely necessary. Most interview processes I've been through would not have that flexibility.
Unrelated, but this is the first time I've seen blog post on SequoiaCap.com. Can't help but think they were inspired by YC/HN (and the design seems inspired by Medium.com).
I love it and hope more companies like Sequoia publish useful content for entrepreneurs, whatever the medium -- their own site, or wherever.
The candidate(s) who work for a competitor during their employment knowingly breach their existing contracts, get fired, and continue to undergo Weebly's trial week.
Like others have said, if you want to implement such a program, then that's the way to do it. Now whether it would be good to see this as a trend for the industry is not clear cut. Say you have only 3 weeks of vacation a year, then you can only interview with 3 companies. And that's assuming that you are willing to burn ALL of you vacation time.
Right. It's a good idea for a single company that does it. It fucking sucks if everyone starts doing it and if hire rates drop to the level (~20%) typical of in-office interviews.
Anyway, the fact that it burns a week of vacation means it's going to exclude the passive job seekers, in practice. It's probably a good mechanism for filtering the unlucky/good unemployed from the generally undesirable, but the people who have jobs and might passively look around after ~3 years aren't going to bite.
Not necessarily - it's quite possible that the kind of reasons that get a 'no hire' at this stage will show up consistently in this environment and consistently be a problem for employers.
Weebly seems to be doing things right-- only bringing people in for the week if there's a high likelihood of hiring them-- but I don't expect that everyone would be so enlightened. That's the problem. What happens when other companies start doing this and only taking 20 or 30 percent? Now, a large amount of peoples' time is getting burned. A 1-in-3 chance of losing a week in one's job search isn't a total catastrophe, but an industry change that systematically makes peoples' job searches longer and more complex is evil.
Companies can be quite inconsiderate with others' time when the job market goes weak. In 2001 and 2008 when the job market was disastrous, there were some banks in NYC that had interview processes sprawling out over 4 full days, followed by a competitive reference check (not just a basic check).
Here's a gnarly ethical question, and just one that comes up. What if you bring someone in for a trial week, he performs well, and then a reference call comes in and it's negative? Do you lie to him and say he performed poorly during the trial week? Or do you tip him off about the bad reference, and risk a detrimental reliance suit (which will cost you 6 figures unless you give the bad reference's name, forcing you to choose between your own pocketbook and your source's interests)?
2 phone/skype fizzbuzz interviews and a week trial. Alternatively, a project which is a simple tool or Open Source contribution. The later maybe be more appealing for students since they would like to have some github portfolio.
While I have no problem with an evenings/weekend work sample, I'd only agree to a trial week if I was currently unemployed and desperate. I also choose not to do contract-to-hire, which is the other 'trial period' approach I've seen. Anecdotally, the two places I've worked at that mostly did contract-to-hire for their other employees, the quality of my coworkers seemed a fair bit lower than at other jobs. Good contractors didn't care for the for-hire part, and folks who just wanted salary didn't care for the contract part, so you were left with people who couldn't find a position without agreeing to something they didn't care for.
I've had something of an unusual career path, and I've found out first-hand that a lot of companies don't like people with weak resumes / references, and it's hard to build these up (especially references).
I always try to convince companies I'm interviewing with to do a "try-before-you-buy". Of course, it's a lot easier to do the trial week as an employee if you're starting out from a position of being unemployed, rather than taking vacation to do this.
I understand weak resumes, but what is your reference problem? Lack thereof, or bad ones?
You can get more references by doing freelance projects, but if you have a bad reference, then you need to fix it. Contact me offline (michael.o.church at Google's email service) and I'll explain the decision-tree for that game.
I don't fully dislike this idea-- I think it has some value for both sides-- but it could evolve into backdoor age discrimination (which is what a lot of the startup "culture" is). Weebly seems to be doing it right-- 66% hire rate, not a competition, everything paid-for, etc.-- but I'd be worried if this caught on. What if companies start instituting 2-month trial periods at submarket rates, and what if that becomes the norm? What if hiring rates of 20% (comparable to in-office interviews, but harmful when contiguous periods are required and vacation time, instead of stray sick days for interviews, must be used)? What if companies delay reimbursement for months, exacerbating the disadvantage of a protracted job search? Or, what if companies use the trial week period not to evaluate work, but for unethical purposes such as doing the sketchier reference checks (e.g. back-channel) that savvy job seekers prevent by using (or faking) time pressure from competing offers? Speaking of which, exactly how is this going to interplay with the (presumably ongoing) job search of the candidate, and the likelihood of offers coming in with tight timeframes? Do people get to move around their trial days to take other interviews? They should have that right.
It's an interesting idea, but I can see it going in a really bad direction.
You've obviously thought a lot about hiring practices. Do you think hiring for "culture fit" is always bad or do you think most companies have a poor interpretation of what a "culture fit" is?
I think "culture" is a strange word in this sense. Are you talking about whether people drink after hours, or how much autonomy employees have over their project assignments? Some cultural elements are meaningful, some are not, and it's highly subjective. Sometimes, "not a culture fit" means "arrogant asshole". Sometimes, it means "not 23, privileged, white and male".
The cultural things I care about, personally, are the ones that affect how I work. I'm a huge fan of open allocation, as you might know from my other posts. I don't care much about making friends. I'll make a couple, if I'm lucky, and that will happen naturally; but I go to work to work, not to be "cool" or find drinking buddies.
Also, the chummy culture of the VC-darling hot startups is really superficial. These people act like they have deep friendships because it fills a void and makes the 90-hour weeks bearable, but as soon as a person leaves, he's spoken-of as if he were hanged unto death for some unspeakable crime. Just shows how much real friendship there is in the VC-funded world.
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.
Maybe I'm a paranoid pessimist, but it seems to me that the worst case is that their employer finds out about this and then fires them because of breach of contract, specifically the non-compete clause. Granted, not everyone is under a non-compete clause, but it's still a risk people should think about. And it's still something Weebly should think about, too, unless they actually completely throw away the work their candidates produced during the trial week.
However, you can't take trade secrets or sales lists with you, that kind of thing. But you cannot be prevented from (say) working at software company A, then walking across the street to work at software company B doing the same job.
The trade secrets thing is where it gets nasty. I've seen people in court because the old employer accused them of using trade secrets in the new job. So if your old employer has a tendency to be nasty, you need to be squeaky clean about your departure, and even then you might get sued.
Employers of salaried employees generally don't need cause to fire employees, and not only are employee non-compete contracts generally not binding in California, but also it's not the nature of an enforceable non-compete that you can't do software development for any company (or even most companies).
Well, you can still fire someone for any reason in "right to work" states. Fighting this is really hard.
The use of a "trial week" says to me that the company in question sucks at being able to accurately assess candidates, and is taking the cheap and easy (for them) way out. I know that other companies are capable of doing a good job of interviewing someone in a day or two, why can't these people?
I can't think of any circumstance under which I'd entertain an offer on these terms. I don't think any of the people I've worked with and can recommend would, either. This company is probably losing good people up front; folks who have been around, have experience, and can go elsewhere with less hassle, and so who don't bother to send in a resume.
It's actually worse. A non-compete has to do with work after you leave a given company's employment, and like you say are non-enforceable in California and some other states. A no side work agreement, or a no side work without approval, or a we own the IP of your side work unless waived, are all much more widely enforceable and I would think would be violated by this kind of set up.
If the founder there is still reading this I highly recommend you ask your attorney to draft a formal legal opinion letter.
The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that this practice can open you up to a tortious interference lawsuit from a former employer of one of your hires.
I don't think "no side work" is a market contract term for tech workers. I'd appreciate it if someone could correct me on this. Noncompete was market, and practically boilerplate, before the CA ruling. "No side work" is a much more egregious intrusion into employee private lives.
It's entirely standard for large employers -- places like IBM, Microsoft, Sony, JPMorgan -- to at a minimum restrict it or require permission. If by 'market' though you mean venture backed start-ups and the like, then I have no idea.
Keep in mind that, even in the context of non-compete, California isn't the be-all-and-end-all of the subject. It is the state where the prior employment took place that matters. (Usually, choice of law questions can get complicated.)
all of our employment agreements in CA must include this notice (besides, we'd never claim ownership over what someone does on their own time):
Exhibit B
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 2870 NOTICE:
California Labor Code Section 2870 provides as follows:
Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: (1) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under California Labor Code Section2870(a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.
That looks like it relates exclusively to patents (given the invention language). In any event, California law doesn't govern employment contracts / quasi-contracts entered into in another state.
If you were to 'trial' an employee who had signed a copyright assignment agreement with his current employer in a state where such agreements are enforceable, the prior employer would have a colorable argument that it owned any code written during that week.* If the employee had signed an agreement containing an "anti-moonlighting" provision, again in a state where such provisions are enforceable, the prior employer would have a cause of action against the employee for breach of contract and possibly against your company for tortious interference with a contract.
As I say in the sibling comment, I really think you should talk to your lawyer about this, particularly since the policy is now been subject to a fair amount of publicity that a disgruntled ex-employer might reasonably come across. Although I don't like your hiring policy, I have nothing against your company and would hate to read in a few months that you are bogged down in litigation.
*Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright actions, but will apply substantive state law in interpreting and applying contracts. Which state's laws can be complicated, but the most likely one is where the employment took place.
This is more than side work though, this is a week of being a salaried employee of two companies. This would certainly violate the terms of employment of any standard salaried employment contract.
"and not only are employee non-compete contracts generally not binding in California, but also it's not the nature of an enforceable non-compete that you can't do software development for any company (or even most companies)."
Locality aside, non-compete isn't what would get you here.
For most companies, they likely have specific policy in place - that you agree to around taking outside work while still employed by them. It might be they allow it, in which case it's fine. More typical is that you need to get some level of approval for work that doesn't conflict. In some cases they ban it outright, though I suspect the latter isn't particularly enforceable.
Certainly I've been in situations where I've picked up non-conflicting side contracts, and my employer has turned the other cheek because the approval process was tedious. However, that will vary significantly by company, and - legality aside - IMO they would've been within their rights to call me to task for it, because I knowingly agreed to their terms on the matter.
"Employers of salaried employees generally don't need cause to fire employees"
That's only so much handwaving. Yes, they generally can fire you for any reason or none at all. On the other hand, they typically won't. Unless you give them cause by taking an action contrary to the actual terms of employment you agree to. Then they certainly will do so.
I think we're talking past each other. All I'm saying is, the specifics of how you upset your employer are probably irrelevant. Anything you do to piss off your employer is probably grounds for termination.
I'm not disputing the risk of doing a temp-to-perm project for a prospective new employer. But the operators of these programs would probably retort by saying that they're the last step before confirming that you're giving notice anyways.
Fair point, I think I focused more on the context than the statement.
I'd view it overall as less of an issue if there were numbers better than 2/3rds (I believe I saw posted elsewhere) proceeding to the offer phase. To me that represents a huge risk: a 33% chance that I'll have done this contract work, lost vacation time, and jeopardized my current employer relationship.
If the number is higher than that, then I'd have to ask if there is really as much benefit as it seems. If the purpose is ultimately to weed out those who just aren't compatible, it seems a 1 day project would suffice.
I couldn't see anyone with a current job willing to do this. Not only does it cost a week of vacation (difficult to justify to a spouse), but how much advance notice can you give your current management?
Edit: Honestly, I wouldn't have agreed to this in college either. A week is long time to dedicate to one potential job offer when other companies have more reasonable expectations. Weebly would have to be offering something really special.
We've never hired anyone straight out of college (but not because we don't want to). Nearly everyone we've hired has been currently employed, and about 75% were even relocated from out of state.
On the college student front, we're trying to make improvements to get better at that. As a small startup, we never made the long-term investment in properly timing the recruiting and interviewing process, but now that we're a bit bigger, we're focusing on it more.
I think this is a wonderful strategy for both the company and the potential employee. When I have interviewed for jobs in the past, as much as they were interviewing me, I was interviewing them to understand if I would like to work there. So I would be pretty happy with the opportunity to get a better feel for whether this is the right place for me.
What a horrible idea. You're only going to find total newbs / fresh out of college hires. People that, like, "have jobs" already aren't going to give up a week of vacation for the honor of working on your hamster wheel. This probably isn't even legal.
> 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 was wondering this myself. Surely people are aware that they'll have to go through with this before the initial interview. 5% sounds like people who found another job and didn't feel like going through with this.
All in all, from someone with a somewhat legal background this seems like a pretty unsubtle form of age discrimination. It wouldn't be very hard to argue that this actively discourages people with families (aka older people) from applying.
Sounds like it has some similarities to what Automattic does -- http://automattic.com/work-with-us/ -- Though of course being a remote work company Automattic can implement it quite differently, and probably more fairly (remote work is much easier to fit into a current job more seamlessly, and if needs be, more secretly).
I've heard about another company offering this to engineers and sales people. As far as I remember both individuals had kids and turned it down, but I don't think the company offered compensation. I assume if you really want the job, you'd do it.
While I understand the negative comments regarding the trial week coming out of vacation time, if you are currently unemployed this is not an issue.
Coming from Sweden it is very common to have a trial 6-months, but then once you're hired its hard to get fired/let go. When I was looking for a job straight out of school I would have preferred a one week trial versus busting my a*# for 6 months straight with the risk of being let go, although this is very rare (you need to mess up big time).
It's funny. Silicon Valley is considered to be one of the least risk averse places but when it comes to hiring, it's incredibly risk averse.
On one hand, companies are loathe to make a hiring decision without running candidates through a meat grinder. Resumes? Those doesn't tell us anything. Code samples? You might not have even written the code and truth be told, we're not going to take the time to look at them anyway. References? Everyone says you're a rockstar, but how do we know you'll be a hit with our team?
On the other hand, prospective candidates who are currently employed often expect offers without doing much of anything. Four-plus hours of interviews? I can't take time out from my job. A real-world coding test of some sort? I could get in trouble with my current employer, and I want to spend time with my family tonight. And by the way, how much are you going to pay me again, because if total comp is less than $xxx,xxx, we should end this conversation before it even gets started.
Don't get me wrong: the cost of a bad hire or career move can be very high, and companies and prospective employees should use common sense (and gut instinct) to filter out relationships that clearly aren't likely to work. But it's insane to believe that every element of risk can be eliminated in these transactions, which is precisely what both sides so frequently seem to be doing.
As a company, if you demand to try before you buy and the word "employee development" is a foreign concept, you're likely to have problems. As a prospective employee, don't expect a company to hand you the goods if you act like you're window shopping.
141 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadStill, if you were to do such a work-trial program, I can't imagine a better way to do it than this.
Also, older programmers (even those who've declined management by choice) threaten the lie on which the VC-funded world stands, which is that being a subordinate engineer (and getting jack-shit equity) at 22 is a sure path to being an exec at 27, a founder at 31, and an investor (either an angel, meaning "rich", or a VC, meaning "given a soft landing") at 35. The brutal career age-grading comes from a need to exclude those who refute the lie of promised progress.
The logistics of certain hiring practices may be themselves biased in terms of age (or other factors), which is questionably ethical. This trial week seems to discriminate against those who cannot trivially sacrifice vacation time (employees with families, for example). There are others, too; I've heard other founders scheduling interviews with candidates late into the evening or night, even on weekends. With kids to tend to, that would be an incredibly frustrating situation.
Nothing is quite so black and white that these acts are themselves evil, but I do hope companies aren't becoming culturally biased. If you're flexible with your policies, then perhaps you'll do fine. With that said, there's something to be said to sticking to some conventions in the interest of not alienating candidates
Especially when relocating their families, it's actually a positive -- you end up feeling much more comfortable this is a place you will be at for a while before making that commitment.
I am personally willing to do a trial week at a company that I would really like to work for, because I don't like the traditional 1-hour stress-filled interview, and also because it'd let me evaluate the company and co-workers over a period of time. (Many companies are uglier on the inside that they would seem if you go by their web presence, and a few hour interview.)
But I can think of many awesome people I've hired over the hires who have other life commitments and would have passed if we'd used a trial-week policy for hiring.
So it's tricky, but I think you can pull this off if you're an "in demand" company with a good funnel of candidates; you would simply have to live with many excellent candidates passing on your company.
Even if it weren't the case, you're still giving up a significant amount in a form you cannot get back. Paid vacation is not easily come by, and the company is asking the people to work during that time? It is a process biased against those who do not have the luxury of taking a week off on a whim.
The only issue is for those who don't get an offer or don't accept the offer, which is why this is (or should be) reserved for very late in the interview process.
I've seen people that have been great in week 1, showing initiative, energy, insights into the problem, etc. But by week 3, their insights are gone, their initiative has shrank, and their energy is wiped - despite everyone working to support their success.
What I'm saying is, it's easy to put in one great week of work - especially when everything is new, and you're amazing people with the speed at which you pick things up. After 3 - 4 weeks, you'll see the real employee emerge.
Outside of financial compensation, though, I hope that companies that do this are very flexible on the scheduling of the week of work.
I know that it would be difficult to take a week off of work at the wrong time without burning too many bridges. I try to give my company plenty of notice on vacation (months sometimes) so that they can plan ahead for my absence. It's a two way street, since they try and give me plenty notice for when I'm absolutely necessary. Most interview processes I've been through would not have that flexibility.
I love it and hope more companies like Sequoia publish useful content for entrepreneurs, whatever the medium -- their own site, or wherever.
Its much harder to get a worker with family commitments to work long hours/weekends etc
Anyway, the fact that it burns a week of vacation means it's going to exclude the passive job seekers, in practice. It's probably a good mechanism for filtering the unlucky/good unemployed from the generally undesirable, but the people who have jobs and might passively look around after ~3 years aren't going to bite.
Companies can be quite inconsiderate with others' time when the job market goes weak. In 2001 and 2008 when the job market was disastrous, there were some banks in NYC that had interview processes sprawling out over 4 full days, followed by a competitive reference check (not just a basic check).
Here's a gnarly ethical question, and just one that comes up. What if you bring someone in for a trial week, he performs well, and then a reference call comes in and it's negative? Do you lie to him and say he performed poorly during the trial week? Or do you tip him off about the bad reference, and risk a detrimental reliance suit (which will cost you 6 figures unless you give the bad reference's name, forcing you to choose between your own pocketbook and your source's interests)?
I always try to convince companies I'm interviewing with to do a "try-before-you-buy". Of course, it's a lot easier to do the trial week as an employee if you're starting out from a position of being unemployed, rather than taking vacation to do this.
You can get more references by doing freelance projects, but if you have a bad reference, then you need to fix it. Contact me offline (michael.o.church at Google's email service) and I'll explain the decision-tree for that game.
It's an interesting idea, but I can see it going in a really bad direction.
The cultural things I care about, personally, are the ones that affect how I work. I'm a huge fan of open allocation, as you might know from my other posts. I don't care much about making friends. I'll make a couple, if I'm lucky, and that will happen naturally; but I go to work to work, not to be "cool" or find drinking buddies.
Also, the chummy culture of the VC-darling hot startups is really superficial. These people act like they have deep friendships because it fills a void and makes the 90-hour weeks bearable, but as soon as a person leaves, he's spoken-of as if he were hanged unto death for some unspeakable crime. Just shows how much real friendship there is in the VC-funded world.
He liked the new job, came back from "vacation", and gave his notice. I don't remember how much notice he gave.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.
Maybe I'm a paranoid pessimist, but it seems to me that the worst case is that their employer finds out about this and then fires them because of breach of contract, specifically the non-compete clause. Granted, not everyone is under a non-compete clause, but it's still a risk people should think about. And it's still something Weebly should think about, too, unless they actually completely throw away the work their candidates produced during the trial week.
However, you can't take trade secrets or sales lists with you, that kind of thing. But you cannot be prevented from (say) working at software company A, then walking across the street to work at software company B doing the same job.
The trade secrets thing is where it gets nasty. I've seen people in court because the old employer accused them of using trade secrets in the new job. So if your old employer has a tendency to be nasty, you need to be squeaky clean about your departure, and even then you might get sued.
The use of a "trial week" says to me that the company in question sucks at being able to accurately assess candidates, and is taking the cheap and easy (for them) way out. I know that other companies are capable of doing a good job of interviewing someone in a day or two, why can't these people?
I can't think of any circumstance under which I'd entertain an offer on these terms. I don't think any of the people I've worked with and can recommend would, either. This company is probably losing good people up front; folks who have been around, have experience, and can go elsewhere with less hassle, and so who don't bother to send in a resume.
All told: Meh. I'm not impressed.
The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that this practice can open you up to a tortious interference lawsuit from a former employer of one of your hires.
Keep in mind that, even in the context of non-compete, California isn't the be-all-and-end-all of the subject. It is the state where the prior employment took place that matters. (Usually, choice of law questions can get complicated.)
Exhibit B
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 2870 NOTICE:
California Labor Code Section 2870 provides as follows: Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: (1) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under California Labor Code Section2870(a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.
If you were to 'trial' an employee who had signed a copyright assignment agreement with his current employer in a state where such agreements are enforceable, the prior employer would have a colorable argument that it owned any code written during that week.* If the employee had signed an agreement containing an "anti-moonlighting" provision, again in a state where such provisions are enforceable, the prior employer would have a cause of action against the employee for breach of contract and possibly against your company for tortious interference with a contract.
As I say in the sibling comment, I really think you should talk to your lawyer about this, particularly since the policy is now been subject to a fair amount of publicity that a disgruntled ex-employer might reasonably come across. Although I don't like your hiring policy, I have nothing against your company and would hate to read in a few months that you are bogged down in litigation.
*Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright actions, but will apply substantive state law in interpreting and applying contracts. Which state's laws can be complicated, but the most likely one is where the employment took place.
Locality aside, non-compete isn't what would get you here.
For most companies, they likely have specific policy in place - that you agree to around taking outside work while still employed by them. It might be they allow it, in which case it's fine. More typical is that you need to get some level of approval for work that doesn't conflict. In some cases they ban it outright, though I suspect the latter isn't particularly enforceable.
Certainly I've been in situations where I've picked up non-conflicting side contracts, and my employer has turned the other cheek because the approval process was tedious. However, that will vary significantly by company, and - legality aside - IMO they would've been within their rights to call me to task for it, because I knowingly agreed to their terms on the matter.
"Employers of salaried employees generally don't need cause to fire employees"
That's only so much handwaving. Yes, they generally can fire you for any reason or none at all. On the other hand, they typically won't. Unless you give them cause by taking an action contrary to the actual terms of employment you agree to. Then they certainly will do so.
I'm not disputing the risk of doing a temp-to-perm project for a prospective new employer. But the operators of these programs would probably retort by saying that they're the last step before confirming that you're giving notice anyways.
I'd view it overall as less of an issue if there were numbers better than 2/3rds (I believe I saw posted elsewhere) proceeding to the offer phase. To me that represents a huge risk: a 33% chance that I'll have done this contract work, lost vacation time, and jeopardized my current employer relationship.
If the number is higher than that, then I'd have to ask if there is really as much benefit as it seems. If the purpose is ultimately to weed out those who just aren't compatible, it seems a 1 day project would suffice.
I couldn't see anyone with a current job willing to do this. Not only does it cost a week of vacation (difficult to justify to a spouse), but how much advance notice can you give your current management?
Edit: Honestly, I wouldn't have agreed to this in college either. A week is long time to dedicate to one potential job offer when other companies have more reasonable expectations. Weebly would have to be offering something really special.
On the college student front, we're trying to make improvements to get better at that. As a small startup, we never made the long-term investment in properly timing the recruiting and interviewing process, but now that we're a bit bigger, we're focusing on it more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
then again, if you have a decent amount of evidence you are competent and not an asshole i would imagine this raises your odds significantly.
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.
The point is, evaluation works both ways. Did they fail your test or did you fail theirs? :)
Nice point of view though, thanks for sharing!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
As a freelancer I'm glad I can take as much vacation as I like.
How many people decline the interview process before you've offered them trial week because they are aware that's how you hire?
All in all, from someone with a somewhat legal background this seems like a pretty unsubtle form of age discrimination. It wouldn't be very hard to argue that this actively discourages people with families (aka older people) from applying.
Coming from Sweden it is very common to have a trial 6-months, but then once you're hired its hard to get fired/let go. When I was looking for a job straight out of school I would have preferred a one week trial versus busting my a*# for 6 months straight with the risk of being let go, although this is very rare (you need to mess up big time).
On one hand, companies are loathe to make a hiring decision without running candidates through a meat grinder. Resumes? Those doesn't tell us anything. Code samples? You might not have even written the code and truth be told, we're not going to take the time to look at them anyway. References? Everyone says you're a rockstar, but how do we know you'll be a hit with our team?
On the other hand, prospective candidates who are currently employed often expect offers without doing much of anything. Four-plus hours of interviews? I can't take time out from my job. A real-world coding test of some sort? I could get in trouble with my current employer, and I want to spend time with my family tonight. And by the way, how much are you going to pay me again, because if total comp is less than $xxx,xxx, we should end this conversation before it even gets started.
Don't get me wrong: the cost of a bad hire or career move can be very high, and companies and prospective employees should use common sense (and gut instinct) to filter out relationships that clearly aren't likely to work. But it's insane to believe that every element of risk can be eliminated in these transactions, which is precisely what both sides so frequently seem to be doing.
As a company, if you demand to try before you buy and the word "employee development" is a foreign concept, you're likely to have problems. As a prospective employee, don't expect a company to hand you the goods if you act like you're window shopping.