> Nobody with options is going to accept multiple weeks of limbo in exchange for maybe having a job.
Let's say it does take 2 weeks to do 20 hours (2 hours a day), you would be compensated $4,000 for working 2 hours a day. Or if you're in between jobs you would have the time to do 20-30 hours in about 1 week and get paid $200 / hour.
I guess I'm just picky. I did freelance work for ~20 years and worked on 1 contract very part time for 2 years before deciding I wanted to try something new and work there full time. There was no interview process, I just signed a document and that was it.
I couldn't ever in a million years think about joining up at a place based on a few short interviews where 90% of the time is answering their interview questions. As someone who would be hired I really care about what I would be doing most days and what it's like to work there. Of course salary, benefits, TC, etc. is all important too but those are only numbers in the end.
I think this short contracting approach looks out more so for the interviewee. This "talented developer" can now pick and choose based on really knowing what it'll be like instead of hoping it's decent based on a couple of interviews.
I would have thought a highly talented person isn't concerned about jumping between interviews, getting hired, quitting after 3 weeks because it's not a good fit and repeating the process until they find a good match. Am I just way off base here? Do most folks bounce between jobs every few weeks (going through 5-7 interviews per job) until they find something they like?
