Hacker News Reader

Will talented people be willing to give up their full time job for a job they may very likely get fired from?

Automattic does something interesting from what I've read. They have you work there as a trial for 1-2 months while keeping your full time job. This is probably pretty stressful but you get the ability to work with the candidate while not asking them to sacrifice their livelihood if things don't work out. Needless to say, it seems a lot of people don't get hired after the trial.

> Will talented people be willing to give up their full time job for a job they may very likely get fired from?

Maybe, maybe not. If they are already on the job market, then they probably don't mind looking for a job. If they feel that taking your job and getting fired still leaves them financially covered for an additional 6 months of searching, then they may not care too much.

If that company becomes known for this, then being "fired" from them won't really be a bad signal on your resume (if you even want to list it on your resume at all, depending on how long of a stint it is).

I don't think my idea is perfect. No hiring method is perfect. But I think that businesses should take a perspective that's fundamentally more about investing in getting to know and support someone as they are on-boarded, instead of Spanish Inquisitioning them and if they don't run away screaming then rationalizing that you've hired the best possible person (who, surprise, leaves after 18 months anyway because you didn't assess their fit or how their aptitudes really match up with job needs, you just whiteboard hazed them).

If they are in the a-job-every-2-years treadmill, it may not make any difference.

It probably depends on lots of factors, but I do like the consulting idea better.

> a-job-every-2-years treadmill

This is already caused as much by companies as it is by candidates who are job hoppers. When I see a resume with short stints, it basically has no effect on me any more. If the person is good and I do my job to make them happy to stay, that's the best I can hope for. Pretending like either I can predict who the job hoppers are in advance, or that I should only hire people who magically have some intrinsic desire to work for me no matter how I treat them are both fantasies.

Oh, absolutely. It tells nothing about the person.

It's only that, if one is on that position, there won't be much downside to take your offer. But if one currently has a stable job, there is.

>Talk to people, dig into their background and preferred working style a little. If they appear to be competent, then just hire them.

If I am very good at this assessment, then this may work. However, if I trust my skills to assess someone accurately, I am unlikely to have a complicated hiring process.

If I am a company owner (or manager!) who is not good at assessing people this way, then wouldn't substituting my process with this proposal make me spend a lot of money twice?

1) Paying salary to more people than open positions (Because I don't spend money on a hiring process and rely on my assessment skills, I may end up with many not-so-best-fits)

2) Severance package to let them go

> I will end up with many not-so-best-fits

I am not sure I believe this. First, if you are aware that you're not good at assessing it, then have someone else in your company do the assessment, or hire someone who can (possibly on the advice of your investors or something).

If you can't do either of those, I am afraid your business just isn't going to work out.

So, almost by definition, the person doing the assessment is reasonably good at it. For otherwise, you won't be around very long regardless.

Also, if you find that you're hiring a lot of people who seem good, but ultimately are fired, maybe look in the mirror. Maybe it is that your expectations are unrealistic, or maybe you expect people to adhere to "culture" standards that do not support human flourishing.

Unless the tech problem you need to solve involves lasering in on a fleetingly tiny population of candidates (most don't), then a sequence of looked-competent-but-needed-to-fire people is probably more a reflection on the company than the candidate stream. It's unlikely that all of them were elaborate fakers.

The costs of (1) should be low unless there's a fundamental problem with the company (in which case the costs of (1) are way cheaper than hiring a management consultant to help you not fix it).

(2) is a real cost, and yes, some companies can't afford it (so maybe they scale back to 3 months severance? Maybe they add continued health coverage. Maybe they let you pick a foosball table to keep) ... but it is just the cost of getting useful information about an employee, instead of the not-very-useful info that most hiring processes generate.

> If I am very good at this assessment, then this may work. However, if I trust my skills to assess someone accurately, I am unlikely to have a complicated hiring process.

If you don't have the skills for that assessment, how do you know your complicated hiring process works?

You accept more risks on the hiring process, by hedging them with the firing process.

If it'll be good or bad depends on the actual risk balance you create between those two processes. But if the idea that the hyper strict hiring process does not help selecting great candidates, a moderate increase on nominal risk on the hiring process will actually improve your odds there, and you'll gain both ways.

> If they are not qualified for the job or they are not a cultural fit later, just fire them.

This is the entire problem with the inability to hire the "best"; It's dangerous to try and fail with lawsuits, unemployment, etc. I personally prefer to work for companies that don't hold on to poor employees and have quit companies that do the opposite. If you want to "hire the best" you have to "fire the worst". I accept the risk that comes with this of course (and many others may not).

Do you know any companies that follow that approach? Sounds pretty interesting, I wonder if there's any dara from people trying that.

Isn't this not too dissimilar from the Netflix hiring process (minus the readily giving offers part)?

Why on Earth would salary be "grossed up" when paid as severance?

Why would anything ever be grossed up? Because the purpose of the payment is to give the recipient a particular amount of money, usually related to specific costs, not some amount less taxes.

The costs of sustaining a job search after being fired are a bit different than the costs of living while you have a reliable income stream. The grossing-up part is meant to reflect a nominal amount of money to cover those kinds of costs, not just a virtual continuation of the salary-less-taxes you'd been living on while employed.

In my experience, severance and sign on bonuses are often grossed up, as are payments made for relocation expenses.

But there's no reason to be hung up on that part. It's perfectly fine to just offer a regular severance benefit without grossing it up.

If I give an employee a $100 Amex gift card as a spot bonus, I do gross that up.

If I pay relocation expenses, I require receipts (at which point, it's non-taxable for most situations, so doesn't need grossing up). It's not that I disbelieve the new hire, but rather that I have to make it accountable in order to make it non-taxable.

If I pay cash comp (whether as a signing bonus, periodic bonus, commission, in contemplation of on-going employment, or as part of a termination agreement), they're wages in my book and I've never seen them grossed up (unless more of the character of the gift card or Christmas ham variety).

> If I pay relocation expenses, I require receipts

This might be a deal breaker for me if I was interviewing with someone. It's not that I care about the accountability part, it's more that a ton of relocation costs are unforeseen incidentals, or are private expenses (like first month's rent ... it's not your business what I choose to pay in rent), that should be covered by just paying cash to the new hire. Making them track down receipts for all of it might work out to be more costly, in terms of time lost, than just bearing the taxes, and certainly might involve requiring knowledge of expenses the employee may rightfully prefer to keep private.

Usually, I expect that the company will handle almost all aspects of relocation on their own (e.g. buying plane tickets and hotel rental for housing visit, calling up and hiring the moving company to pack and ship belongings). The part that would be paid as cash would be the cost of rental fees, deposit, and first month's rent, as well as some small amount for incidentals, which should be grossed up.

On the other stuff I guess we just disagree. I don't view sign-on bonus or severance pay as wage pay, even if they are pegged to wage level. For the other stuff, I agree, it's just part of regular income and the employee should bear the tax. But for sign on bonuses and severance, I think it's fair for the employer to bear the tax in light of the purposes of those payments.

Sign on bonuses are very different in this discussion though, since not everyone provides them and the amounts can vary a lot and for low amounts grossing up can matter significantly, while for larger amounts, employees are usually happy to bear the tax cost themselves. I'm not so worried about what an employer's policy is for these.

It would matter to me to negotiate a specific value paid for severance, though, rather than "6 months' salary" which will then have taxes taken out. If an employer was put off by this, it could be a problem, depending on all the other aspects of the job. One way to avoid this is that if secretly what I want is 6 months severance grossed up, then I'll try to negotiate 9 months severance, without mentioning the grossing up part. It's less off-putting to the counterparty, even if it would be nicer if I could just speak plainly.

I'm just speaking from my experience as a candidate in previous roles. I'm sure everyone has different experiences.

It wouldn't end up as a deal-breaker. In the discussions leading up to it, you'd object to providing receipts, indicate that you're trying to cover other types of costs, and I'd respond with, "OK, we'll call it a signing bonus," and then negotiate the exact [pre-tax] amount.

I (and I assume most hiring managers) have broad discretion on the amount of a signing bonus. For an engineer I want, I will never care about the difference between a $5K and a $10K signing bonus (or if we're talking about bonus in lieu of relo, the difference between $15K and $25K). It's a one-time expense to me, comes out of a different budget, and yet candidates seem to really value them seemingly out of proportion to the economic benefit.

It can vary a lot. I think $10k is a generous signing bonus if it comes in addition to relocation. $15k is around the smallest lump sum relocation I would consider reasonable though.

Some firms offer > $30k signing bonuses (some more than double that) independently of relocation. It's rare, but not exceedingly rare.