Hacker News Reader

'gradual hire' sounds great in theory, but it is going to be a pretty unattractive option for a lot of developers. One problem is the lack of certainty - why would I get 'gradually' hired somewhere if I have other options where I can get a permanent job right away? The bigger problem is the lack of benefits, which presumably includes health care. In the US, at least, this would make it pretty difficult - buying insurance on your own can be very expensive and going without it is risky/costly, so it would be a pretty big problem for a lot of people, especially those with health problems or a family.

I think this method would highly select candidates that didn't have better options. The reason it works in your first example is that the person being gradually hired is employed by another firm that offers them stability and benefits in the meantime.

Well, there can be options, like "we're paying you a decent salary, and compensate insurance, but we can stop working with you within one day". The most important difference here is that company don't risk much. And the candidate don't need to quit his current job: just do some tasks 1-2 hours a day, for example, so it's not just "gradual hiring", but "gradual quit" as well.

That's an unacceptable offer for a lot of higher-tier developers. Literally un-acceptable - I'd never get poached by a contract-to-hire, especially one with no benefits. And even if I was forced to accept such a situation, I'd continue to send out resumes and take interviews while on contract-to-hire.

Agree, I wouldn't do that either. For those russian guys it's bit different though, as they are already hired, with decent salaries and benefits (for Russia). Moving to HQ is just a big (and questionable?) bonus.

Agreed, it'd be tough to leave a company where things are going well to become a contractor at a no-name company. I also think I'd be much less willing to make a jump unless I had met a number of the current employees and founders and felt it would be a culture fit.

This sounds like a big waste of time for all parties. Just have a probation process with real gates. Fail probation if the people don't work.

I've been successful with this process all sorts of environments, even in unionized civil service gigs.

> you just start working with a guy, giving him basic isolated tasks, and as he successfully progresses with his work, task are getting more and more complicated (salary, permissions as well). After few months of such freelance-ish work you can know for sure that this dude is compatible with the team, able to solve problems, able to learn. And only then he becomes an employee with offer, benefits and SO.

Careful not to presume or disseminate the idea that all candidates/hires are men.

Would you have made the same comment if GP had qualified everything with "she"?

Also, many European languages have gendered grammar, which means that it is hard for English second-speakers to speak about someone in a gender-neutral way (for example, it would not be syntactically possible to create such sentences in Slavic languages).

No one cares.