Contract-To-Hire? Use Judiciously

Posted By: George Pandelios

One of the hiring mechanisms that seems to be gaining popularity is contract-to-hire. This vehicle allows a company to bring on an employee, see how they perform, and then either make them permanent or let them go. All the risk resides on the candidate’s side and there’s no downside for the company. Sounds perfect, right?

Not really. It is true that in today’s job market there is a surplus of applicants for jobs, and salaries tend to be depressed. For lower level positions where technical proficiency can be readily measured, contract-to-hire is an excellent choice. It allows you determine the candidate’s real qualifications for the position and then make an informed decision. At this level, candidates are not going to quibble over this issue.

In vital positions affecting the overall profitability or critical functioning of your company, however, contract-to-hire may not be the right way to go. For the strong candidates (the ones you really want to hire), contract-to-hire presents a less than flattering perception of your company. Consider this.

First, it says the company isn’t really certain about the direction it is pursuing. That pretty much shoots up a flare declaring “weak management”. Reserving the right to cut and run when a strategy doesn’t work is always there; advertising that right has no upside.

Second, it says that your company’s hiring process is not to be trusted. Again, most hiring situations are “at will” anyway. So if the person doesn’t work out, they can be let go without much fuss. But the use of contract-to-hire for really important positions (senior project managers, director of applications development, product manager) broadcasts a lack of faith in your own hiring practices. Not good.

Third, the strong candidates are going to look at this and say to themselves “why would I quit my job to take a chance with these guys? They are certainly not investing anything in me”. In effect, you are restricting the pool of good candidates and increasing the number of mediocre (or desperate) ones who will consider your company. Is that the outcome you really wanted?

Again, in some lower level technical positions or those positions with a limited lifetime, the use of contract-to-hire can be a good choice. But for vital positions, think again about the subliminal message you send to potential employees. Trust me, they are listening.

6 thoughts on “Contract-To-Hire? Use Judiciously

  1. Hi George! Interesting points. However, having been on both sides of this issue, I can and have used contract to hire before. I have used it when I was 95% sold on the candidate and just had one or two reservations. Each time, I ended up hiring the candidate as they worked out. Sometimes a candidate is so flustered or nervous in the interview that no matter how good their qualifications, they flub the interview. By using contract-to-hire, you can see if that was the case or not.

    When I have advertised a position as c-t-h but found the 10000% correct candidate, I have waived the contract part of it and hired the candidate directly. As a hiring manager, you should have the power to do so. If not, well, you’re not working in the correct place.

    Remember, you don’t buy a car without test driving it (well, if you’re not me you don’t….)

    • StephenGood atrcile. I have found in the corporate world, that there is one more task or step beyond what you provided for quality of hire calculations, and that is converting any quality of hire metrics it into dollars. Saying your QofH improved 12% doesn’t get a COO or CFO’s eye nearly as fast as saying that this year’s new hires produce an average of $87,000 more revenue than last year’s hires. Showing that a new hire produces (for example) 3 times the revenue than the average employee is the most powerful way to present Q of H and to get executives to want to hire more.John

Leave a Comment