I really like the approach of "Contract-to-hire" developers but I've often found it to be difficult in markets where most good developers have multiple offers at any given time.
Also it's tough to do this when you're boot strapping and literally every pair of available hands can make or break your first big deal that helps keep the lights on.
As a developer, you'd have a hard time getting me to commit to a 3-week job (as suggested in the blog post) because I already have a job. And if I didn't, I'd be looking for a job, and looking to commit to a real job as soon as possible. At best, if I couldn't get a job at all, I'd take the 3 week job for the money, but I'd have no loyalty to you if someone else came along that was ready to commit. I'd finish the 3 weeks, and tell the other company I was in the 3 week contract, but I'd end up working for the other company.
Programmers who aren't freelancing are about job stability, and a 3-week contract screams 'unstable'. Yes, there's a normal hiring process after it, but during that time, you haven't provided any measure of stability at all, and so anyone that comes along and promises it is going to be more appealing.
I went through an interview process that had me write a simple CRUD app for free. It wasn't related to their business, and neither of us got anything out of it except qualification for an in-person interview. That is the most I'm willing to stick my neck out for a job, and I wondered if it didn't take a little too much of my time for what it was.
> you'd have a hard time getting me to commit to a 3-week job
Here in Denver, there are a number of companies hiring through recruiters that try to say "this is a 3 month contract" but the job ends up lasting 2-3 weeks. So you are right, it is hard to get folks to agree to a 3 week "job" - you have to lie to them.
my experience has been that the very best developers often prefer this.
I've had a few top-notch developer friends request recently that a startup allow them to work as 1099 contractors for a month first. They see their time as by far their most valuable asset and they want to learn more about a startup before committing.
In reality, with work-for-hire employee contracts, anyone can leave and anyone can fire for whatever reason. And that's what Paul English does. Contract-to-hire just takes all the expectations and paperwork and emotions out of it.
I would add that it also takes out all of the benefits, which employers never mention. No benefits, no unemployment payments. Having hired many people over the years, I always get a kick out of this argument that they are the same. They aren't the same at all! Much easier and cheaper to hire contract employees. Much harder to get good employees. I don't hire contractors unless it really is a short term job. Contract work isn't for finding your long term employee partners. Contract work is for one-time or short term work. If I need a long term employee, I look for a long term employee and I don't pretend that I'm trying people out by using the guise of contract-to-perm.
Actually you can't fire for any reason, but for a lot reasons. For example, you generally can't fire someone due to gender, or race, or testifying in court for the public good, etc...
I'd only take a 1099 if I was getting full benefits and equity, or paid accordingly. Although as a contractor on a one month contract I'd probably still consider my side project looking for a job. Whereas as an employee I will be a lot more vested in the company.
In practical terms, you can fire someone for any reason, just so long as you list an acceptable reason on the paperwork. The power of an employer to fire you at any time is definitely not equal to the average employee having the power to leave at any time, and that's part of why 'employment at will' is a crock.
Also it's tough to do this when you're boot strapping and literally every pair of available hands can make or break your first big deal that helps keep the lights on.