"Try-before-you-buy" has been around for years in the tech field, although usually it was done over a period of a few weeks or months versus just a few days. The concept is not new, but basing the hiring decision on a week is at least somewhat novel.
I think the real hiring secret here is more around measuring a candidate's interest in the company, and it seems a main hiring criteria is a willingness to show your dedication and 'loyalty' to the company before being hired. If the candidate wasn't compensated, this is similar to a one week pledging for a fraternity or sorority, where the decision to hire/induct the applicant is verified by their willingness to participate in the process.
Would the company consider hiring anybody that was unable (work contract, family responsibility) or unwilling to go through this process?
Even though the company is paying candidates, taking a week of vacation time to audition is still a significant investment of time. Most candidates in the industry are comfortable with the amount they earn, and many would sacrifice 2% of their salary for an extra week of vacation.
To prove this theory, as a recruiter I've had countless candidates try to negotiate lower salaries or benefits for additional PTO (or unpaid time off). I have had exactly one candidate in my fifteen years that tried to negotiate a higher salary and less PTO. The value of PTO is significant, and if industry pros are that hungry for cash then we should see more of them using their PTO to earn money (of course there are some who will).
In an ideal world, every candidate would have the free time to be able to vet their employer in this way also. Working for a company for a week should help prevent some 'bait and switch' tactics.
If you truly want to test your candidates' dedication and belief in your company before hiring, this is a good method to weed out people who might only be 99% committed. Of course, it eliminates some strong talent as well, and unfortunately I'd suspect that the talent it eliminates in most cases is senior level with families.
I think the real hiring secret here is more around measuring a candidate's interest in the company, and it seems a main hiring criteria is a willingness to show your dedication and 'loyalty' to the company before being hired. If the candidate wasn't compensated, this is similar to a one week pledging for a fraternity or sorority, where the decision to hire/induct the applicant is verified by their willingness to participate in the process.
Would the company consider hiring anybody that was unable (work contract, family responsibility) or unwilling to go through this process?
Even though the company is paying candidates, taking a week of vacation time to audition is still a significant investment of time. Most candidates in the industry are comfortable with the amount they earn, and many would sacrifice 2% of their salary for an extra week of vacation.
To prove this theory, as a recruiter I've had countless candidates try to negotiate lower salaries or benefits for additional PTO (or unpaid time off). I have had exactly one candidate in my fifteen years that tried to negotiate a higher salary and less PTO. The value of PTO is significant, and if industry pros are that hungry for cash then we should see more of them using their PTO to earn money (of course there are some who will).
In an ideal world, every candidate would have the free time to be able to vet their employer in this way also. Working for a company for a week should help prevent some 'bait and switch' tactics.
If you truly want to test your candidates' dedication and belief in your company before hiring, this is a good method to weed out people who might only be 99% committed. Of course, it eliminates some strong talent as well, and unfortunately I'd suspect that the talent it eliminates in most cases is senior level with families.