Re: Interviewing is Often Done Incorrectly
>>hire the person for 3 days to get a work sample.
@vnewman2, I had to chuckle at that comment. Back when I was going to college I applied for a job as a Culligan (Water Conditioning) route driver. Your job was to haul those metal cylinder filters into people's basements and haull out the old one. One weighed about 140 and the other close to 180 lbs. You also delivered 40 lb bags of salt. A route about 20-30 stops a day.
Anyway, after Culligan did interview and decided to give you a chance, the next step was to come in on a Friday and run a route with existing guy. If you actually came back on Monday then you had the job. :-)
I was in terrific shape back then, played basketball all the time. I was never so sore in my life than the weekend after running that route. But I took job, actually grew to like it.
But point is the employer mindset was much same as you suggest in IT hire, the probability of failure in hire was greater than it being a success. So they came up with that approach to avoid completely processing a new employee when many never came back after first day.
In IT, I think a 90 day probation period might work better than a 3 day period but I think you are correct in your theory. You can't talk to someone in interview for awhile and figure out what you really have. Just too many unique skill sets needed to be a complete IT guy, at least once you get off the very lowest rungs of IT work.