Interviews End with the Probation Period
Interviews End with the Probation Period
Using the probation period to validate hiring decisions
TL;DR
Creating a hiring process that doesn't stop with the offer, but extends into the probation period allows for much better assessment of candidates. While it may create some awkwardness and disruption if a candidate doesn't pass probation, in the long run it creates a much stronger culture and team. The key to doing this right is transparent communication, a well thought through onboarding process and clear deliverables.
Hiring is Hard
Hiring talent is one of the hardest things a startup has to do. It's impossible to really assess someone well during an interview process. Especially, as most startups are time poor. It's natural to have a conversion bias, rather than an overly thorough approach. While a systematic interview process and a work product are a good base on which to make a hiring decision, it is natural to make mistakes. The probation period, if used right, can ensure a longer period of assessment to ensure the initial decision was the right one. However, most startups squander the probation when it comes to defining discrete deliverables to get a better sense of the new recruit. Unless an employee really messes up badly they always pass probation. This lack of critical assessment leads to false positive candidates sticking around for far too long, which causes a whole host of undesirable consequences (erosion of culture, good employees getting demotivated, drag on performance, etc).
Hiring strategy is a bigger topic, which I'll cover in another post. That said one important goal of a good hiring process is to avoid false negatives. While it's often natural to have some false positives (i.e. hiring someone who doesn't work out), most startups don't worry enough about false negatives (i.e. rejecting people who could have been 10x employees). A hiring strategy that allows for course correction during a probation period allows to make decisions that give borderline candidates a chance.
Google Dublin
I started my career at Google Dublin. I joined the company as a contractor in the customer support department, which was an onramp to more exciting roles down the line. The way Google had setup their hiring process in Dublin might be seen as a bit "mean" but it was effective. Let me explain.
As a customer support contractor our job was to approve or disapprove Google Ads created by advertisers. We received great training and a lot of resources that helped us to learn our core job. Getting a full time contract depended on our ad approval speed and ad approval quality. Speed was assessed by looking at our daily reviewed ads stats. Ad quality was determined by checking a sample of our decisions to see if they adhered to the Google's policies (i.e. no excessive caps and punctuation in ad texts, websites can't sell firearms, etc). This was a clear and fair progression system. If we did well enough with ads, we progressed to email customer support. Again there were expectations for number of tickets closed and email quality. Training and resources were abundant to make sure we didn't feel out of our depth. Once we met the predefined targets we would get a permanent contract offer to join the team.
While I was going through the experience, I did feel the stakes. I had moved to Dublin for a full time role, so I wanted to make the cut. This was stressful. Google also didn't allow contractors access to all parts of the office so I felt a bit like a second class citizen until I joined "the other side". Overall, though, the system ensured that everyone who passed through the gauntlet was good at the basics of the job. 95% of my colleagues were top notch. Creating an upfront funnel to assess people before they "make the cut" was an effective way to create a strong culture with high performers. It also allowed Google to make offers to people with non-traditional backgrounds. Some folks had studied literature or pedagogy and would have probably not been given a chance if it wasn't for this contractor onboarding phase. Finally, it allowed Google to make a lot of offers without too much effort, which was important giving its crazy hiring needs post-IPO.
Transparent Communication
Why the Google interlude? I am not suggesting to hire all your team as contractors and then convert them to permanent employees. Let's be real, sometimes you are actually quite happy if someone accepts an offer, so creating more obstacles for them to join sounds like a bad idea. That said most startups I’ve seen treat a new joiner as a full time employee but without any high expectations for the first 6 weeks. This is backwards. The damage a false positive employee can cause to culture, motivation and performance of otherwise great employees is not negligible (especially if the hire in question is a manager). It is also much easier for an employee who doesn't make it through probation to get back to the market without having to justify an awkward 6 months stint (assuming that no one is going to put 1-2 months on their CV).
So how can we make best use of the probation period? Let's be clear upfront that a good hiring process is key. Being sloppy while hiring, just to then let someone go during a probation is irresponsible. Run a thoughtful interview process, get some 2 hour work product, and run references. Now that it's time to make the offer, we have to be fully transparent. It's important to message the fact that the probation period is still part of the assessment in a non-threatening way. The majority of people should pass through if the hiring process is good. You could say:
"As an organisation we continue to assess our new employees throughout their probation period. Nearly all our hires complete their probation successfully. We don't do a perfect job with our hiring process and want to ensure to address any mistakes early both for the sake of our existing team and the new employees."
Note that the statement takes the edge off as it assures the employee that most make it. It also establishes that hiring the wrong person is the company's fault and not the fault of the candidate. Finally, it conveys that this is done for the team and the candidate. Having the best interest of the team in mind hopefully sounds compelling. They might not believe that it’s in their best interest to let them go but is it really fun to work at a company that doesn’t appreciate ones contributions?
It is possible that at this point some candidates could be spooked and might reneg on joining the company. I would venture to say that those folks probably weren't a fit to begin with, however, I understand this can be painful given the sunk cost. It is also sometimes hard to do this with very senior employees as they negotiate the probation period away. It is a hard call to decide to still keep the probation or do a super thorough reference check instead. Setting a bad precedent to make exceptions for senior employees is not great. One can hope they understand that and therefore sign up for the same terms as everyone else.
Thoughtful Onboarding & Deliverables
To enable our new employee with the best chance to pass probation, we need to ensure they are well onboarded. Startups are frantic, under resources and over worked but the ROI on this is a no brainer. In an ideal world there should be some up to date documentation that can be shared with a new starter. In addition, they should be paired up with a buddy that is going to be their first port of call when they run into issues. Moreover, their manager has to be hands on with them to ensure any obstacles are removed. This could mean checking in on a daily basis.
For the most part the reason that I've seen people fail their probation is not that they weren't as capable as I thought they'd be during the interview. It comes down to the fact that they couldn't adapt effectively to the operating principles of a startup. There is a particular mindset one is looking for at early stage companies - adaptive, highly communicative, thriving at fast pace, comfortable with ambiguity, efficiency minded, proactive are all qualities that come to mind. These are really hard to fully assess through interviews and references as they are subjective and specific to each particular company (in other words, what I define at fast pace might be a joke to you).
When it comes to the deliverables, ideally you'd like to have something quite objective like in the Google example (ad/email volume & quality). The benefit of this is that it will be a comparable measure for everyone that starts in that job. In reality, though, it's hard to define deliverables that neatly. In that case the manager of the new recruit should propose a deliverable that is sense checked with the wider team to avoid bias. As a matter of fact, it is good for the immediate team to know about the pass criteria for new employees so they can help them (within reason) to achieve it.
Getting the deliverable right isn't an exact science and therefore one needs to be lenient if a new recruit doesn't achieve it in the first 6 weeks. It is actually less about the actual achievement but more about battle testing someone early in their tenure to see if they can deal with the particular way of work at the company. They may be a perfect fit, but due to circumstances out of their control not hit the milestone. As long as peers and manager agree there is a fit, they should pass probation. In summary, the main goal is to use the first 6 weeks of a new employee's time at the company properly to assess their fit, rather than assume that the interview process is perfect. Waking up to the idea that someone was a false negative 6 months into the job should be avoided.
Managing Bad Outcomes
So what if someone fails. The easiest scenario is that there is a mutual understanding and everyone can go their separate ways (Hollywood ending). If the employee disagrees with the assessment then it is important that the messaging is done well. What helps in this case is if the rejection doesn’t come as a surprise but that they had been already prepared that things weren’t going well. In the end, if the company manages the communication well it comes down to the maturity of the employee. It is always great to offer help to them in finding a new role (through introductions), especially if the fit issue has nothing to do with capability but rather with compatibility.
The other important constituency to manage is the existing team. If they agree with the decision this is easy. Nevertheless, it is always good to explain why someone was not converted. Especially, because some of the direct team members spent time interviewing, onboarding and working with the person. Transparency as far as possible goes a long way. This is doubly important if some of the team disagree with the decision. In such situations, the team needs to understand how high the bar is, why it is that high, and how the candidate didn’t pass. This doesn’t have to be a company wide conversation but is most relevant for the immediate team affected. The goal should be that existing employees feel special given that they passed.
A year into my Google job we joked that “the old guard” wouldn’t pass the probation period (contractor stage in this case) anymore, because the bar had been raised. It made us feel special and also made us appreciate our new colleagues more.
Conclusion
This method of assessing new employees throughout the probation period might seem like extra hassle but it helps avoid major headaches down the line. It is important to establish a culture which appreciates that this process is created in the interest of the existing team and not to be a harsh employer. If you get this right it will strengthen the existing team’s pride in their role and appreciation for the colleagues that make it through.