[dustywusty]

As both an interviewer and interviewee at Weebly, I'm pretty confident in saying I prefer our approach of the trial week. It really gives a great opportunity for the candidate to show off their skills without the on-the-spot pressure of a coding interview. A great side-effect is the candidate gets to determine if they like the team, and vice versa. I honestly wouldn't work somewhere else where I couldn't come in for at least a few days to meet and work with the team.

[morgante]

Instead of repetitively saying that you went through this same gauntlet yourself, how about an argument for how you think this is possibly a valid strategy for attracting good already-employed developers?

As I see it, there are 2 huge barriers to me ever doing a trial week while currently employed:

1. If it doesn't work out, I've just burned 1/4 of my vacation time for the year. That's a pretty massive ask for a company to make. I could do a bunch of math with expected values, but I'm sure it would work out to Weebly having to have insanely great compensation (>$300k) for me to do it.

2. Even if it does work out with Weebly, it makes it impossible for me to concurrently solicit and evaluate multiple offers, which I absolutely do when looking for a new position.

How do you overcome those problems which make it very unlikely that 99% of employed developers will do your process?

Of course, it could also be that this is a brilliantly designed strategy for weeding out expensive employees by focusing on the unemployed and unsavvy.

[kabdib]

> Of course, it could also be that this is a brilliantly designed strategy for weeding out expensive employees by focusing on the unemployed and unsavvy.

This is the result, intended or not.

The problem is, the good people usually don't need a job. So the more of a gauntlet you make your hiring process, the less likely it is you'll get one of those already-employed, perfectly happen and great employees. You're selecting the people who couldn't get jobs at your competitors (modulo the false-negative rejects).

[IndianAstronaut]

I did something similar with another company wherei did remote part time work for 2 months to see if they would like me and vice versa.

Didn't end up working out so I was glad it was only part time and I didn't make the jump. If I made the jump directly, I likely wouod have been laid off and unemployed.

[weebelo]

<em>I'm pretty confident in saying I prefer our approach of the trial week.</em>

A full week is pretty close to insane. It means that application is effectively limited to the currently unemployed (or those who are willing to burn what might be all the vacation they can take for months).

That said, it does make pretty clear that Weebly doesn't give a single shit about employee's lives; so it's kind of Weebly to make clear, right out of the gate that they expect to be the only thing that matters in your life.

[dustywusty]

As a pretty happily employed Weebly for a few years now, I'm frustrated that you think that, but I'm glad that you went out of your way to register an account to reveal your thoughts. In this case, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

[qmalxp]

Please, tell us how you really feel

[larzang]

How would you handle the currently-employed with a such a setup? Having to either give notice or use up a week's worth of vacation days just for an extended interview at a single company sounds like a real horror show from the interviewee end.

Contract-to-hire at least gives you a couple months of fairly sure income.

[dustywusty]

I was employed when I did my trial week at Weebly, and I had to use a week's vacation to do it. Weebly paid for my time, not to mention the trip to SF. Obviously it was worth it to me, but I can see where you're coming from.

[jbapple]

Many employees have contracts that do not allow them to do outside paid work.

[nickonline]

This is pretty rough on any interviewee who already has a job as they'd have to take holiday days to interview.

Do you give them a week off in lieu if they get the job?

[msandford]

What happens if they don't get the job, and they burned 1/3 of their year's vacation?

[tomtang0514]

But how do you handle the case that candidates already have a job somewhere else? They can't take a whole week off for this.

[dustywusty]

I took a week off at my previous job to trial at Weebly. My previous job had a very strict vacation policy, but I knew the importance of what I was doing.

Weebly has an unlimited vacation policy, so, it worked out pretty well.

[nickpsecurity]

You've mentioned this twice. Yet, it means nothing for vast majority of people in the workplace. The majority have to be at work programming instead of interviewing for programming positions. They neither have unlimited vacation time nor a 100% guarantee using a vacation for some interviews will go anywhere. If anything, the OP's post shows quite the opposite for them in common case.

So, how does a trial week work for candidates committed to another job? If anything, it seems to self-select for part-time or remote workers that are already in a position with time on their hands. The best I know don't fit into that category: you'd miss them.

[xacaxulu]

EVERY job switch has inherent risks. It's unreasonable to expect otherwise. No one can help that and OPs situation wasn't crazy. He/She took a risk and it paid off. The downside is just a lost week of PTO? Not too crazy and anyone with a full-time job and some PTO could do this. I'd even get 'really sick' if I had too.

[nickpsecurity]

It's true that every job has risks. Where do you see me (or OP) say otherwise? The question is should every candidate give up a whole week of his or her time knowing it will get most people nowhere. That method's benefit is almost entirely rigged for the hiring party with huge potential for waste for other party in any environment with multiple, decent candidates. A few anecdotes that worked out don't change that.

So, the question is: "Should employers put this kind of burden on every candidate or try a method which demonstrates skill with less time?" I push for the latter.

[duderific]

What a disaster though, if you didn't get the job. 1) Lose a week of PTO, and 2) Feel really bad that the people you spent a week with didn't think you were good enough.

Also, from the Weebly end of things, what if you know a couple days in that the candidate isn't going to work out? Cut them off right then or finish out the week?

[hatsix]

How many interviews can you afford to have like this?

Likely, the decision was already made by you being willing to risk the week of vacation and put in the effort to get hired, while they showed a similar regard.

You might be able to get away with 1 or 2 of these things a year... but it's a REALLY good way to burn bridges.

[mrits]

It's very hard to squeeze top talent away from other companies. If they had to make it through a trial week I would say it would be near impossible.

[PopeOfNope]

Sounds interesting. It's too bad you only hire in SF and NYC.