Iyfjky

Question

This will probably largely depend on the organization, but in general is it a bigger hurdle to overcome when you move from a permanent to contract position with the same company or the other way around?

Companies often hire people in permanent positions because they feel that they need to, and end up realizing that they don't need someone on a permanent basis. The other scenario is that they engage someone on a contract and then realize that they need to have someone to do more of the same work. I have been in both situations before, and I think that going from permanent to contract position alienates you more than going from contract to permanent, but I am wondering if this is largely a work culture or just from my own experience, and would like to know the specific reasons.

Contracting as in incorporated or as in 'now we pay X amount per hour but nothing else has changed'? Also, what country are you in? — May 17 '13 at 13:49
From the FAQ - You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site... If your motivation for asking the question is Ã¢Â€ÂœI would like to participate in a discussion about ______Ã¢Â€Â, then you should not be asking here.* — May 17 '13 at 16:14

score 0 · Answer 1 · 2013-05-17 13:14:47Z

ASSUMING RELATED TO IT or OTHER PROFESSIONAL JOB

Contract to perm can raise eyebrows because of the different nature of the two (more on that shortly) and also because a company invests in permanent, whereas looks at contractors as disposable tools.

Given that should an ex-contractor dislike being permanent the company has effectively "wasted" the money spent on training them up, companies will tend to view with suspiscion contracts->perm, rather than perm->contractor.

On the different nature - contracting/consulting tends to involve specific projects with specific responsibilities (ie develop a tool or create a financial model or operate some machine), whereas permanent tends to involve a wide range of tasks (develop this tool, maybe this one too, support that old one and hey, you can be scrum master for a month, etc etc ).

Some people will like this, others, typically viewed as being contractors, will not.

Contractors/consultants are also tended to be viewed as "get in and get out", keeping tight rein on their working hours and not budging on things like weekends, unpaid overtime etc. Permanents are expected to be happy with this, so again there will be questions asked as to the malleabity of the ex-consultant's expectations.

And as noted above, because a permanent is considered more of a cost than a consultant (i mean, in terms of money paid to stuff done) the average company isn't going to want to chance as much with a permanent worker than a consultant.

Going the other way? Not so big a deal. As long as you have the skills, there isn't much risk for a company taking on a consultant. They can fire you if you don't deliver, and they're not generally spending money training you so there's no blown budget.

The hurdle then in moving from permanent to consulting is proving you're worth the extra money, but that's from your view, not the company's.

EDIT: just noticed the word "with" which on initially reading i'd assumed meant "with respect to" but now could also plausibly mean "within", in which case:

it is easier to move from consulting to permanent, assuming you consulted at company A and within the same team and contiguous timeframe are moving to a permanent role in company A.

This is because: you'll end up being cheaper for the company unless you're good at negotiating, you've already proved you can do the job, everybody knows who you are, and you're less of a risk than a new hire. Much much less of a risk.

Going from permanent to consulatant, within the same company, is infinitely harder. You're going to be asking for much more money (unless you're an idiot) and they already have you working there. Is it an ultimatum? Good luck with that. If you're good enough to consult, then it would be infinitely simpler to just jump to another company and consult there.

OR

resign, take a holiday, try to come back in 3-6 months as a consultant ~ which will be a bit easier to pull off.

Straight up telling your manager you want to be paid more and work less hours will be hard to pull off, and is generally unheard of.

user8365 · Answer 2 · 2013-05-17 17:03:15Z

There are a lot more unknowns and things you have to acccount for when you're working on a contract that are usually part of a full-time employment package (paid holiday, sick days, insurance, tax withholdings, retirement, etc.).

Some of the pros and cons when comparing the two may not be the same for everyone. Do you see full-time employment as more job security or negatively because you're stuck in the same old job? Contract work may provide the opportunity to make more money in a short period of time so you can take more time off. The income may be the same in the long run, but being able to take a long holiday (more than 3 weeks) is rare when working full-time.

A contractor may be in a position to network with more people and create better opportunities down the road. Many contractors were actually a full-time employee and switched to work for the same company as a contractor. This is great if it lasts and you're able to find other work. Some people are able to find new jobs, but don't see themselves as a "sales person" and may struggle with landing new business.

Being a contract worker has a little over-head just like running your own business, but I think different people have different temperments, family or persona concerns that could increase or decrease different gaps in either path.

bethlakshmi 70.4k4136277 · Answer 3 · 2013-05-17 17:49:23Z

The expectations and considerations are different. I'm not sure what you mean by hurdle... but I'm assuming that you mean the difficulty imposed by getting the company to do what you want.

I'd pivot this to a different thought - the two arrangements are different trades and different relationships. Both the individual and the company are likely to only be willing to agree to a transition that is beneficial in light os self-interest. So taking the two possible transition points:

Contract -> Permanent

In many places, this is almost a traditional hiring path. When a company forsees a very changable or temporary need, or wants to try before they commit to a permanent relationship - contractors are a great starting point. If the need should change or the person should prove to be a valuable asset, the transition is often quite easy.

Here's the limitations:

Desire of the individual - not every contractor wants to be permanent, for some contracting is their preference.

Nature of the contract - different contracts offer different cases on the transition cost. A contract can include a fee to "buy out the contract" - meaning the company pays a fee to contracting firm in return for hiring the employee immediately, or a fee for permanent placement at all (regardless of when the contract ends. These fees vary remarkably and can impose a greater or lesser constraint. Often a company who knows they have an intent to hire good contractors on permanently will set up a contract that is advantageous for this.

Nature of the work - to go from contract to permanent, the company must see that the employee's skill sets and basic personality are a good permanent fit with the needs of the company. Some of this may be changeable (learn a skill set that helps you get hired) but some is chemistry and culture - much harder to change.

Permanent -> Contract

A very different case, and in my experience, less common, but not rare. In a previous company, it wasn't unusual to hire retirees on post-retirement as contractors. It worked very well, although there were certain legal constraints.

It can help the company be more fluid - contractors are easier to let go, and the onus of employee benefits is much reduced. It's a riskier position for the employees, and raises the fact that the realtionship can change at any time for either side.

Limitations:

Nature of the work - this time, the company has to have a job that it sees as temporary. Different companies treat contractors differently. But if the employee was permanent, persumably they had long term value, why move to a contracting situation? Quite honestly, if the employee is not valuable, moving to a contract relationship isn't going to help.

Benefits from contracting are relevant - Does this somehow help a cost for the company or provide a necessary flexibility? For example, only needing to pay a contractor when work is available lends flexibility to some types of business. Also - if there was some cap on benefits (we can't have more than 100 people enrolled in our tiny gym and all employees get gym membership for free...) where the company benefitted by saving the costs.

Preference of individual and style of individual - contractors have a subtly different set of expectation - the individual needs to be willing and able to meet them. Not to mention having the right knowledge - while I see some variance here, typically you don't expect that contractors have a huge depth of knowledge on the business and company - so their big value is usually transferable skills.

Either way -

The two models address two different sets of needs. There may be a "lifecycle" to the process in a given company - for example:

Be hired as a contractor

Be awesome

Get hired permanently

Be awesome for some length of time

Have a life change that requires more flexible working arrangements

Become a contractor

Continue to be awesome

I can say I see a common thread here - in any case, a company is usually unwilling to make a change of either sort if the employee isn't a good bet for good performance. When an employee is underperforming, the common best practice is to maintain expectations and get the employee able to meet them consistently... or prove that the employee can't and terminate the arrangement. Changing expectations when there's already a performance problem is really never a good idea.

So that's about the biggest hurdle either way - addressing the needs of the company.

The rest is the business cases.

score 0 · Answer 4 · 2013-05-17 13:14:47Z