Trial and Error

In my career, I've been through quite a few interviews; some have gone well, a few have gone poorly, and a handful have left me downright puzzled. To be sure, I'm not the world's best interviewee; thinking on my feet is not my strong suit and I tend to lock up under pressure. As a result, I feel I may have missed out on a few opportunities for which I thought I was qualified and well-suited because of a poor interview, and I know I'm not the only one. In fact, people regularly lose out on opportunities not because of a lack of ability or aptitude, but because of poor interview practices and simply succumbing to the pressure of the moment. That said, a new trend is emerging (pioneered by the IT industry) that has the potential to rectify this issue for good... but at a high cost.

The problem that every recruiter faces is that they have to accurately gauge a candidate's ability to perform a job, compare him/her to others, and ultimately decide which one(s) to hire. This is particularly difficult in the IT industry, where technical skills are vitally important but difficult to measure in a traditional interview. To address this, some companies are experimenting with an approach that I call "trial" hiring.

In trial hiring, a company will simply hire an applicant for a "trial" period in lieu of performing a formal interview. During this trial period (typically two weeks), the candidate in question will perform his/her job as normal while being evaluated by a manager. At the end of this trial period, the manager will make a decision on whether or not to hire the candidate permanently. As you can see, the idea (and the benefit) is clear; candidates get to show off their skills doing real work (as opposed to submitting to an arbitrary and potentially inaccurate technical examination), giving the prospective employer a good idea as to whether or not they would be a good fit while also allowing the candidate time to develop a feel for the workplace (making it easier he/she to decide if that is the right place for them).

A downside of this approach is that for the trial period, the candidate is unpaid. Companies don't want to invest capital in unproven quantities and definitely don't want unqualified candidates signing on for a quick paycheck (especially if the position is a particularly lucrative one). However, on the other side, the candidate is giving up a full two weeks of his/her time to perform full-time work for which he/she will not be paid. This could be a deal breaker for many candidates who simply can't afford such an arrangement; traditional interviews typically take no more than a few hours and yield a definite yes/no answer within a day or two, but the trial hiring approach essentially stretches that process out for the duration of the trial.

Additionally, there may be a situation where multiple candidates are being evaluated simultaneously for a single position; in this case, each candidate is essentially in competition with one another for the job. The kind of competition could foster a "Survivor"-like environment that would not be beneficial for the candidates or the company (I've seen this firsthand in IT consulting). For example, the candidates, under pressure to win a position, might elect to work harder than normal and to do so at an unsustainable pace; in the end, they might be giving their future employer an inaccurate reading on their potential for long-term productivity and/or cause themselves to "burn out" (that is, to lose interest in a job and look for opportunities elsewhere), in addition to all of the other ill-effects that accompany excessive work under stressful conditions. Furthermore, candidates in this situation may also become actively hostile and attempt to "sabotage" one another by making unwarranted negative or damaging statements regarding a candidate or actively disrupting a candidate's work; Such actions can tarnish a company's reputation and drive away quality talent (see this article written about Amazon in the New York Times).

Personally, I'm split on the idea of trial hiring. On one hand, I do like the fact that candidates get to perform real work to demonstrate their skills and thus have a greater hand in determining the outcome of the process. However, the time and compensation loss is a tough pill to swallow, not to mention the unpleasantries that could ensue should a candidate find himself/herself in a competition with others for the same position. To help mitigate these two drawbacks, I would recommend that companies offer at least some compensation for the work performed during the trial period (a single check at predetermined percentage of the regular rate for the position, for example) and that companies also avoid placing more than one candidate at a time on trial for a single position (to keep from forcing candidates into direct competition with one another).

In the end, is trial hiring right for corporate America? The strategy has already elicited strong opinions on boths sides of the argument (for both moral and practical reasons), but it is still far from mainstream. Ultimately, as with all practices, the effect of trial hiring on the bottom line will provide the clearest indication of it's future in business.