The Corporate Freshman: Test Driving a New Job

This woman just came on board as a vice president in my department. She told me she was only with us for 90 days initially, that she was doing a trial first to see if she was a good fit for the job and the job was a good fit for her. A trial vice president? Huh? I'd heard of trials for magazine subscriptions and skincare products, but for a job?

Tery's situation wasn't like the traditional HR probationary period, which typically spans 30 to 60 days after an employee is hired and is usually considered a formality. In most companies with HR probationary periods, it's generally accepted that a new hire is there to stay unless she's a complete disaster. How many people do you know who've been fired during the probationary period?

True trial employment like Tery's is gaining in popularity across the country. The arrangement allows you 60 to 120 days to see if you like a job on an everyday basis and to determine if you gel with the corporate culture and your new team's personalities. Trials tend to work better in large companies with strong, pre-existing infrastructures, where things won't completely fall apart if one person comes and goes.

There are downsides to doing a trial rather than taking a full time position. For example, since no company is perfect and you have the luxury of leaving after a few months, you may find yourself jumping around a lot rather than giving a job situation a real chance. Colleagues may not take you as seriously when they find out you're on trial, and you may have to accept less money and fewer benefits and perks. Also, some trial employment contracts include problematic "at will" clauses that allow the company to let you go before your trial is up.

Nevertheless, trials are catching on because they present an advantageous situation for employees...and companies. Finding and hiring a new employee requires a considerable expenditure of time and money. Through trial employment, companies can evaluate on-the-job performance without any risk and ensure that they hire the right person.

So how do you get a trial gig? It's important to keep in mind that in order to make this strategy work, you must have the talent and experience that your target employers want. If you think you've got this covered, hook up with an executive recruiter who understands the trial employment concept and can position you effectively. And don't forget to ask around. Casual networking is a simple but invaluable way to learn about opportunities that fit your career goals and strengths.

Once you're in an interview situation, sell the employer on the idea of a trial. Ask him if he's talked to others about the position and if he'd be willing to bring you on temporarily so that you can demonstrate your value to the company. In today's revolutionary job market, you may find that he's more than willing to accommodate the request.

Comments

[True]

If this is mutually agreed-upon between employer and employee, fine. But companies that really want the best talent should be careful about forcing this trial period. The best people don't need to jump through those kind of hoops, unless it's for a company they happen to really want to work for.

[Cathexis]

Man, how I envy the world you live in, Ms Levit!

No, I am not being sarcastic. I mean it ... having the luxury to pick and choose among jobs ... ! To do an employment trial where *you* get to decide ... ! Maybe I am in the wrong field or have just had bad luck. Maybe I'm just too old or too "old-school." But ...

I've never even conceived of the luxury of "test driving" a job to see if "*I* liked it." If I was fortunate enough to receive a job offer with decent pay and an apparently stable environment, I thought myself lucky. If I was unsure, I'd have to decide whether to reject it or risk accepting. But once I chose ... that was it. You stuck it out at least a year and then decided if it was bad enough to look for a new position.

Through decades of weathering periodic recessions and crossing my fingers hoping to evade the lay-off axe (or being forced to wield that axe), I never dreamed that the power of "determining if *I* would choose to stay at a new job" was an option.

In my life experience, it has always been: You took teh job or you didn't. The labor pool was big enough that I, as a prospective employee, didn't have the power to do anything else, except under very rare and unusual circumstances.

Then again, I note the woman's title was VP. Maybe that explains it. I am 1 to 2 levels down from VP, in my current company.

A lot of the "Business Perks" seem to apply only to a certain level of Executive or above, it seems.

Interesting to read about, but ultimately having no intersection with the world in which most of us live.

[SusanIreland]

This "trial" concept is a creative one. It reminds me of my friend who was offered a job with a salary that was about $3,000 less than what she wanted. To negotiate a higher paycheck, she handed the hiring manager a resignation letter that was postdated three months from her start date. She told him, "If, at the end of three months, I haven't proven to you that I deserve that $3,000 more per year, you can use this letter of resignation to let me go." The woman got the job, got the extra $3,000; and her resignation letter was eventually shredded.
-- Susan Ireland at susanireland.com

[WayBeyondBlue]

Hmm. I don't see any employee benefits in
".... Finding and hiring a new employee requires a considerable expenditure of time and money. Through trial employment, companies can evaluate on-the-job performance without any risk and ensure that they hire the right person."

Seems to me that this is just a way to get temporary employment for anyone below a management level.

Spin it up as you like, but the bottom line is that unless you're management, you're a commodity.