> In this environment, why would a top developer, who has their choice among tens of different high-paying interesting jobs, moonlight for a prospective new employer just so they can make sure the relationship's going to work?
I have my doubts that I'm a top developer (I have a long list of things I'd like to understand/do better in order to consider myself in that category), but I've done and would consider doing a paid audition project.
The job I have right now pays market rates, offers good benefits, and involves work for famous clients. It's not a bad gig, and there are enough people who've been there for over five years that it's clearly a good environment for some. On the other hand, I don't find the work itself particularly satisfying. Most of our projects themselves are a bit staid (as projects from established brand clients who feel they have more to lose than gain from risky moves can be), and a lot of what I've ended up doing is production front-end work rather than much problem solving.
This is different from the picture I got during the interviews. That could be as much about my own ability to read what day-to-day life was likely to be like post-hire as anything else, but whether it's uniquely difficult for me or for everybody, I'm left with the same problem -- how do I get a glimpse of what working there is really going to be like?
Seems to me a paid audition is one good answer.
I'd rather do 2-3 months on contract than a 2-3 day project, but I'd rather do the 2-3 days of real work than nothing.
And I think the 2-3 days of real work idea beats another practice that's becoming prevalent: the ~1 day (unpaid!) work sample/code challenge. I don't mind such challenges in and of themselves; a small exercise can be educational and an opportunity to use all the things you've been thinking would be good ideas to fold into a new project. What I dislike is that real feedback seems to be scarce. Even the people who've hired me didn't give me much feedback beyond "it met the requirements and we learned a thing or two from your work." By the time I've invested a workday of focused time in a company, I'd appreciate a "we were hoping to see" or "here's what we liked", and I'm finding I don't get much of that from challenges/exercises. Whatever the flaws of the conventional interview process or the paid real project may be, at least they're both generally more symmetric in terms of investments required and opportunities for evaluation.
I'm not saying that freelancing is bad. For a bunch of reasons, I'm very positive about freelancing and consulting.
You sound like someone who'd rather be consulting than working full-time jobs. Great! You'll probably also make more money and get more professional experience faster than people who take the less-risky full-time job path.
What I object to is the notion of temporarily converting full-time workers into consultants so that companies can mitigate their concerns about how inept their own technical interviews are. Consultants and full-timers are two very different things, and they aren't easily convertible.
> the ~1 day (unpaid!) work sample/code challenge [...] Even the people who've hired me didn't give me much feedback beyond "it met the requirements and we learned a thing or two from your work."
You need to be concerned about the employers who "learn a thing or two from your work" and don't hire you.
Some programming "team leaders" I've met wouldn't hesitate to bring in applicants to work unpaid for a day on coding challenges containing technical blockers from their own projects.
And of course much of what happens in the open source programming world is the same on a larger scale without even needing to supply office space for a day.
I have my doubts that I'm a top developer (I have a long list of things I'd like to understand/do better in order to consider myself in that category), but I've done and would consider doing a paid audition project.
The problem is that it's not always your choice to make. Noncompete clauses exist, and, if you're outside the state of California, are generally enforceable. I don't know about you, but I'd really rather have a system where taking an interview wasn't a fire-able offence.
I have my doubts that I'm a top developer (I have a long list of things I'd like to understand/do better in order to consider myself in that category), but I've done and would consider doing a paid audition project.
The job I have right now pays market rates, offers good benefits, and involves work for famous clients. It's not a bad gig, and there are enough people who've been there for over five years that it's clearly a good environment for some. On the other hand, I don't find the work itself particularly satisfying. Most of our projects themselves are a bit staid (as projects from established brand clients who feel they have more to lose than gain from risky moves can be), and a lot of what I've ended up doing is production front-end work rather than much problem solving.
This is different from the picture I got during the interviews. That could be as much about my own ability to read what day-to-day life was likely to be like post-hire as anything else, but whether it's uniquely difficult for me or for everybody, I'm left with the same problem -- how do I get a glimpse of what working there is really going to be like?
Seems to me a paid audition is one good answer.
I'd rather do 2-3 months on contract than a 2-3 day project, but I'd rather do the 2-3 days of real work than nothing.
And I think the 2-3 days of real work idea beats another practice that's becoming prevalent: the ~1 day (unpaid!) work sample/code challenge. I don't mind such challenges in and of themselves; a small exercise can be educational and an opportunity to use all the things you've been thinking would be good ideas to fold into a new project. What I dislike is that real feedback seems to be scarce. Even the people who've hired me didn't give me much feedback beyond "it met the requirements and we learned a thing or two from your work." By the time I've invested a workday of focused time in a company, I'd appreciate a "we were hoping to see" or "here's what we liked", and I'm finding I don't get much of that from challenges/exercises. Whatever the flaws of the conventional interview process or the paid real project may be, at least they're both generally more symmetric in terms of investments required and opportunities for evaluation.