Try Before You Buy: Can Testing Potential Hires Work for Solo and Small Law Firms
We’ve all been there. After months of sitting on the fence about bringing an assistant or paralegal or associate on board to help dig you out from under, you place an ad or ask around to colleagues for recommendations. You’re encouraged when you identify a job candidate who looks great on paper or comes highly recommended, and even more excited when he or she turns out to be the real deal in person. Yet, four or five weeks after you make the hire, you have buyers’ remorse. Turns out, your new hire can’t write to save her life or is disorganized or passive. And you wonder if the situation could have been avoided?
A recent New York Times Trial Hire Guide suggests yes – through test period hiring. The article recounts the experience of several startups that have employed this approach – essentially hiring a job candidate on a consulting or contract basis for a few weeks to test them out before they are hired. One company gives potential hires work to do after hours or on weekends, while they’re still at an existing job while paying them a “solid consulting rate.”
But could this arrangement work for solos and smalls? After all, by the time many small firms are ready to bring someone new on board, they may be too swamped to come up with assignments to test them out. In addition, it seems that most candidates would be on their “best behaviors” during the trial period but might not keep it up once hired.
Still, it’s a huge problem when a small firm hires a poor candidate and then feels stuck either for fear of having to pay unemployment benefits or putting another lawyer out on the street. If a temp to perm arrangement helps to avoid that outcome, it’s worth the added inconvenience in the long run.
Hi Carolyn, I’ve used this approach with great success. I’m up front about the need for there to be a trial period, especially as some of my hires are remote and you never know how someone will be able to handle the discipline and regular communication required to make that work successfully. Sometimes it has worked out successfully, and others not. In the cases that haven’t worked out, I’ve been very glad not to have to sever an employment relationship. I’ve also had employment relationships that haven’t worked, and it’s led me to stay with this “trial period” approach.
Hi Carolyn, I’ve written about this issue before and also talked about it on my podcast. I’m a firm believer in “fire fast, hire slow”. I recognize it is a great philosophy in theory, but hard to implement in practice.
I recently had a paralegal with me for over two years. 6 months in I knew it was a bad hire, but her work product was good, I wasn’t paying her a whole lot and I didn’t want to take the time to hire someone new. Her problem was a poor attitude, too many sick days, and a complete inability to get to the office on time. It wasn’t until she started asking for benefits and a “significant” pay raise, that I balked and let her go.
Since then, I haven’t been able to find a decent replacement. But this is in part because I am following a much more strict regimen to find someone new. I make candidates jump through all sorts of hoops (i.e. submitting videos no longer than 1 minute of why they want to work for my firm, responding to the posting via fed ex, and following very specific instructions about what I want in the response). The way I see it, if they can’t follow these instructions now while they are trying to get the job, how are they going to be able to follow instructions once they are hired?
Anyway – the process of weeding good candidates takes time, but I believe it will be worth it in the long run. I also do believe in starting someone out with a “testing” or trial period, and then re-evaluating after 1 week, 2 weeks, 30 days, etc.
One other note – I think it is vitally important to have systems in place (I use Sweet Process and love them) so that the new hire knows exactly what to do and how to do it. That way you can measure success and they know how they are doing as well.
James, if I could offer a couple critiques:
First, regarding the paralegal you let go, you did yourself and her a disservice by not addressing the negative aspects of her performance sooner. She was giving you good work product, and a quicker intervention with specific improvement goals might have either turned her into a model employee, or given you the opportunity to let her go sooner. That’s what we advise our clients, right?
Second, regarding the process you now have for hiring new people, I’m not surprised you aren’t getting results. Really, you’d have to be the Greatest Place To Work In the World before I would do any of that for you. This isn’t about whether someone can follow instructions. It’s about whether working for you is worth the trouble of making a video and incurring the expense of fedex, and whatever other very specific requirements you have put out there. Now, you may actually be a phenomenal guy to work for, and you may offer great pay and benefits, although you did indicate above that you weren’t paying the old paralegal much and you weren’t offering benefits. The point is, an applicant doesn’t know that. To an applicant, you’re just another guy looking for a paralegal, and the applicant also knows that probably dozens of other candidates are looking for that job. So what’s the likelihood that spending all this time and effort on you will pay off? Not very high.
You are going into this process from a traditional, employer-centric standpoint, where you think you are interviewing them for a job, and they should be grateful for the opportunity to be interviewed. In truth, they are interviewing you, too. You are competing to be their employer, and there are lots of other law firms out there, not to mention government agencies and in-house law departments. So put yourself in the candidate’s shoes, and ask whether you have made a positive first impression with all these requirements just to get a phone screening. [Am I right, all this is before you’ve even spoken to candidates on the phone?] The fact that you haven’t had success replacing the old paralegal tells me that you aren’t making much of a positive impression.
I realize that I may be coming down harshly on you, but I’ve seen employers do this before. Above The Law makes fun of craigslist ads that have absurd requirements. I’ve encountered this kind of behavior in my own life, including a startup company that wanted candidates to write a business plan for them as part of the initial resume submission. Seriously. Job ads that impose unusual or excessive requirements are a big turn off. They are an insult to candidates.
Hi Paul,
Yes, you did come down a bit harshly without knowing more about my personal situation.
“First, regarding the paralegal you let go, you did yourself and her a disservice by not addressing the negative aspects of her performance sooner.”
I actually agree with you – I should have let her go sooner. At the time I hired her, she was part-time, it was her first position after paralegal school (i.e. no experience), and having been burned by overpaying paralegals who start with me in the past, I wanted to give her bonuses and raises based on her performance. Unfortunately, that never materialized.
“Second, regarding the process you now have for hiring new people, I’m not surprised you aren’t getting results. Really, you’d have to be the Greatest Place To Work In the World before I would do any of that for you.”
How do you know I’m not the greatest place in the world to work? Seriously, do you know that? the paralegal referenced above was more than happy to stay with me for over two years at part-time wages – so I must have been a decent enough boss, right?
“This isn’t about whether someone can follow instructions. It’s about whether working for you is worth the trouble of making a video and incurring the expense of fedex, and whatever other very specific requirements you have put out there.”
This is absolutely about whether someone can follow instructions. There are lots of people out there that want jobs – why should I waste my time interviewing, hiring, and ultimately paying someone with both my pocketbook and my time just to find out they can’t follow simple instructions?
“Now, you may actually be a phenomenal guy to work for, and you may offer great pay and benefits.”
I will for the right candidate.
“although you did indicate above that you weren’t paying the old paralegal much and you weren’t offering benefits.”
Again, she was part-time with no experience.
“The point is, an applicant doesn’t know that. To an applicant, you’re just another guy looking for a paralegal, and the applicant also knows that probably dozens of other candidates are looking for that job. So what’s the likelihood that spending all this ti me and effort on you will pay off? Not very high.”
I disagree – the smart applicant will realize this is an opportunity to set themselves apart because most other people won’t put forth the time and effort. Besides, how hard is taking a 1 minute video of yourself, putting it on YouTube, and emailing me the link? I do that with my kids all the time.
“You are going into this process from a traditional, employer-centric standpoint, where you think you are interviewing them for a job, and they should be grateful for the opportunity to be interviewed. In truth, they are interviewing you, too. You are competing to be their employer, and there are lots of other law firms out there, not to mention government agencies and in-house law departments. So put yourself in the candidate’s shoes, and ask whether you have made a positive first impression with all these requirements just to get a phone screening. [Am I right, all this is before you’ve even spoken to candidates on the phone?]”
You may be correct. However, I’m not willing to waste my time and money on candidates that can’t spell or follow simple instructions, and I’d rather find that out before I have to waste time interviewing them.
“The fact that you haven’t had success replacing the old paralegal tells me that you aren’ t making much of a positive impression.”
That’s where you’re wrong – I’ve had plenty of responses, but haven’t found the right candidate yet. And I believe in hiring slow and firing fast (although I mucked that up with my last paralegal). Also, I took some time off last month to be with a sick family member, and have a newborn at home, so filling this position has not been front and center in my mind.
“I realize that I may be coming down harshly on you, but I’ve seen employers do this before. Above The Law makes fun of craigslist ads that have absurd requirements.”
Do you write for ATL? So if ATL makes fun of craigslist ads like this I should stop doing it?
“I’ve encountered this kind of behavior in my own life, including a startup company that wanted candidates to write a business plan for them as part of the initial resume submission.”
Ok, I will agree that writing a business plan is a bit excessive. But having candidates write a letter that is actually tailored to the position I’m advertising, rather than let them cut and paste the same letter they send to every other employer is not too much to ask.
“Seriously. Job ads that impose unusual or excessive requirements are a big turn off. They are an insult to candidates.”
Ok – I get that you disagree with the method I propose. Rather than come down so harshly on me, please explain what your process is. Maybe I’ll try it your way and see what happens.
Well, I guess I did come down harshly.
Your firm may very well be a great place to work. But unless it is regularly listed as such in one of those “great workplaces” listings, how would anyone know? Also, if you do a blind job ad, where the candidates don’t know the name of the company they are applying to, the desirability of your firm is unknown. In this world, employers are competing with companies that provide on-site day care, massage services, dry-cleaning, free meals prepared by chefs, Friday afternoon happy hours, unlimited vacation time, and a host of other perks. Ask yourself honestly, where does your firm stack up?
Also, there is structuring the job listing to determine whether someone can spell and respond to instructions, and there are absurd requirements. Is making a video and uploading it to youtube a part of the daily job responsibilities of a paralegal? If so, then it should be part of the process. At some point. If not, then it shouldn’t be part of the application process. It may actually weed out otherwise good candidates that simply don’t have the facilities or know-how to make a video and upload it to youtube. Maybe they are using a computer without a webcam. Should they buy a webcam to apply for a job? I’m pretty computer-savvy, but I have no idea how to make a video and upload it to youtube, and I have no desire to learn.
As for fedex, you are asking someone who may not have a job to spend $15 to send you their resume. Does that sound fair to you? Or even necessary? If you want to see if they can follow instructions, provide an email address and a mailing address, and tell them that you want all resumes submitted by snail mail only.
You want me to specify a process for you? Here goes. Ask for a resume and cover letter. Ask them to answer two or three brief job-related questions in the cover letter (something about what a paralegal does). If anyone fails to answer those questions, you’ll know that they can’t follow instructions. You’ll be able to weed out the people who use the same cover letter for every employer (although is this really such a big deal?), and you should be able to tell if someone can spell.
Just because the employment market has been rough the past few years is no reason to treat job-seekers like crap.
I agree whole-heartedly, and I would venture a guess that many of the best applicants would not even send in materials to that posting.
See, it implies a lot about the general work environment that the requirements are so out-there. Even if the environment is great, the prospective employee has absolutely no way to know that and is more likely to write the entire thing off.
And think about people who are already employed and looking for a different job. Are they really going to post a video to social media describing why they want to go to another employer? Really?
If you’re looking for a solid employee, you should probably focus on the relevant skills. Making it into a dog-and-pony show to weed people out is just going about it all wrong, and unlikely to get anywhere close to the desired result.
Agreed.
Also, I don’t think Paul was particularly harsh.
Bottom line is that it’s James’s time and money and he can spend it on hiring someone however he wants. If those requirements seem sort of outlandish to the rest of us, well we don’t need to apply.
I like the idea of employers paying prospective employees as consultants on a trial basis. It seems like a good way to vet folks while still respecting their dignity and time.