If the person does great work for those 9 months, why do you prioritize commitment?
Would you really prefer to hire someone who will perform worse but makes you feel better because you know he probably won't get a job elsewhere or have independent ideas? Isn't that the very definition of "B people hire C people"?
We had someone do amazing work for just a couple of months and it was disappointing to lose him to a start-up but we appreciated the two months of output. But that would be the exception. It can take quite a few months to get up to speed on some code bases, and to learn the non-IT business side if one is new to the sector, so we are loathe to hire anyone with demonstrated startup fever.
No, he might prefer to wait with hiring someone. In some jobs, it can take a few months just getting a person up to speed, certified etc, so hiring someone is an investment.
Heh, I hear that off and on and I'm curious where that comes from. Is it just something that people repeat because it sounds good, or is there solid evidence for it?
Would you really prefer to hire someone who will perform worse but makes you feel better because you know he probably won't get a job elsewhere or have independent ideas? Isn't that the very definition of "B people hire C people"?