I have recently noticed an increasingly popular method of adding an employee to a company. I use "increasingly popular" to reflect what I've noticed as I've interacted with various companies, not well-founded empirical data like an MSNBC poll (ahem). Perhaps you have noticed this trend in your neck of the woods.

The idea is that a company interviews you as if they were going to hire you on full-time, but then they say you'll begin your employment as a contractor. If you prove yourself and meet various expectations, you're hired as a permanent employee. Obviously this approach is used so that companies can make sure they get the right people without wasting company resources on a hiring mistake.

Personally, I think this practice should be done away with. I offer two reasons for my viewpoint.

#1 — Risk

The employer is attempting to reduce, if not eliminate, risk. Adding an employee and using company resources in their behalf is risky. But what about the risk of the employee? To take a job, they may have to do several risky things like up-root their family and move, stop looking for other jobs, gamble with the absence of health care benefits, and begin their employer-employee relationship on a non-committal note.

Isn't a business (small or large) in a more stable position to assume that risk than an unemployed individual supporting a family? Sure, if you hire the wrong person you will have spent some money and perhaps not enjoyed the productivity you sought for, and you must endure the difficulty of letting someone go. But I believe assuming this possibility as the employer is much better than putting the employee through a you-might-be-good-enough run-around.

#2 — Owning the Interview

I believe the contract-to-hire approach could be circumvented if employers would give greater consideration to the interviewing process. It's up to the employer to conduct thorough interviews and evaluate their candidates extensively. I also believe hirers should keep in mind that an interview is often as effective at finding the right people as standardized tests are at finding potentially successful people. Some people just don't thrive in society's standardized evaluation programs. Emphasis should be given to personality, communication skills, and track record, not just how much technical knowledge they can regurgitate in a nerve-wracked encounter. Even after a bajillion interviews, it is still risky to hire someone. Inviting someone to work with you with an exception clause of "we think we like you, but my finger is on the eject button in case you screw up" isn't a big motivator.

I don't bring this issue up because I recently experienced it, but simply because I see it happening a great deal. I see billion-dollar companies putting employees through year-long contracts before extending full-time employment, when the employee is doing everything they should. I believe hiring contractors for an indefinite amount of time is indicative of focusing on the short-term, which, I believe, is not a good business practice (ask those Enron folks). I speak of all this within the context of contract-to-hire positions, specifically for knowledge workers. Hiring a contractor to build your fence is different.

Step up, corporate America, and assume the risks instead of passing the buck to the seekers of employment.