Probationary Hiring

Some people claim that the traditional interviewing model is broken, that it is inefficient and has a poor track record of identifying top candidates. They advocate the idea of probationary hiring. i.e., try a person out for 30 days, and if they don’t work out, just say good bye.

Another way this idea is presented is as a “Contract to Hire” position. The employee works as a contractor for the first X days, and then are presumably converted to perm status if the company finds it agreeable.

Personally I think this is a terrible idea regardless of how you label it. First of all, you could argue that pretty much all hiring is already probationary, especially in an “Employment at will” state like California. Under such conditions a company can let an employee go at any time for any reason (aside from those reasons barred by law, of course). Hence having a 30-day probationary period is just a fig leaf.

Secondly, 30 days is hardly enough time for someone to prove their worth. Unless a person comes into a job with exactly the skills and experience needed for the position, there will inevitably be a ramp-up time involved, which can take from a few weeks to a few months. Plus the person will need to establish a rapport with the team and other stakeholders. This is not something that can be done overnight, and it’s questionable whether 30 days, or even 90 days, is enough.

My advice? Give a new employee at least six months to settle in and prove themselves. That’s enough time for them to learn the ropes and make a real contribution. And if they are still struggling at the six month point, make it clear to them they need to shape up or ship out. And if they still have not improved by a few months after that, there is sufficient justification then to show them the door.