I'v been doing this for some time now: I would have a chat, get to know a person. I would try to see on a human level if im dealing with an honest person or not, how close they are to their resume/linkedin profile.
And I would tell them that I choose believe them, and I want to hire them. But the "interview" as it were, is not over. You will be tested over a period of time for which you will be paid as per your asking salary. But please know this, you will get fired very quickly if you dont live up to your own "hype". I find this direct/dry honesty scare lot of candidates and I'd like to think its a good thing: they are vetting themselves out, instead of thinking they could get in and "hide out" somehow.<p>The reason im doing this vs "traditional" way is 2 fold:<p>1. I dont want to spend endless time on back and forth and technical challenges. Not only I dont have that time, but I would be spending that time (hence money) that I could use to hire them for a probation period.
2. Interviews give lots of false positives. Its like unit tests - you think you covered 100% of your code and you'r done. But shit still hits the fan b/c your integrational/functional coverage sucked. Interviews are only the unit tests !<p>Do you guys ever try approach ? How does this work out for you ?
As a candidate, I would not accept such an offer, no matter how qualified or over-qualified I was for the position. It really does take a while to see how things will shake out in an employment relationship. Plus, although I know loyalty is "dead", I'd worry about someone who trumpeted that fact so fiercely.<p>Anecdote: In one of the most successful jobs I ever had, there was a hard start. After a couple of months, my boss was clearly not entirely pleased with my work, and I suspect regretting having hired me. By six months, that had passed. When I moved on after a few years, he was rather obviously and dramatically unhappy to lose me.<p>My work didn't really change during that time. It just took him a while to figure out what I was doing and why. And for mutual trust and understanding to build up.
As an employer, I have never done this and would never do this. The entire approach signals that the company has no faith in itself or in its hires. As a potential employee, I would certainly decline to work for a company that did this -- not because I'm looking for a place to "hide out" and be a slacker or something, but because I don't want to work at a place that shows that level of disrespect/mistrust, or where I'd have to be constantly looking over my shoulder.<p>On the other hand, I have always used probationary periods when hiring people, and I have no problem accepting positions that come with a probationary period. As a hire, I really appreciate probationary periods because they cut both ways -- if I discover that I don't like working at the company, a probationary period lets me leave without it harming my career.<p>But none of those companies (including my own) that used probationary periods felt the need to indicate in advance that they don't have even a basic level of trust in people.
UPDATE:
Seems like I somehow managed to confuse the readers.
I choose to trust the candidate. Even more so than anybody with traditional approach with technical interviews and endless back and forth. I hire, pay salary after 1 hour of chatting. Only Im direct about my intentions. I specify what is expected of the candidate when hired and Its up to them to live up to what they commit to during the chat.