| > But then why do people with that kind of reputation still (at certain companies) have to jump through these hoops? Your article points out that in this example: "I'm not allowed to check in code, no... I just haven't done it. I've so far found no need to.". > If, say after one month, you do not like what you see, you can easily let them go. Of course you tell them upfront what the deal is. > We could call it, I don't know, maybe trial or probationary period. You make it sound like it's a better solution for candidates, but it's way worse for many of them and it has been explained by other commenters already. How many companies actually do this? At which scale? Some companies increased their difficulty to hire by having aggressive PIP objectives. Likewise, having a "real" probation period where you fire, say, 10%+ of employees is not gonna make you competitive when candidates compare their offers. |