Contract to hire is the way to go, even if a short time. Most jobs are like that anyways, the first weeks/months are still part of the hiring process. This tests the worker in the actual environment. The contract could even be remote and sectioned off from the larger enterprise, just like any contractors added currently.
The important part of contract-to-hire is it shows how the person will communicate while working, which is not really verified in any way with a take-home or whiteboard setup.
Going straight to full employment is like going from strangers to marriage, contracting is a dating phase.
As someone who has been freelancing/contracting for a long while, it is much preferred to full-time employment and essential ownership anyways.
I personally don't mind take home tests, everything you do you can learn from and this gives you somewhat an idea of the type of company you are working with (not necessarily the work). Though they should be paid, as people that are in demand would be more willing to do them as well as the company more invested in reviewing them. However, in no way is the take home test a good indicator of how this person will ship product.
The important part of contract-to-hire is it shows how the person will communicate while working, which is not really verified in any way with a take-home or whiteboard setup.
Going straight to full employment is like going from strangers to marriage, contracting is a dating phase.
As someone who has been freelancing/contracting for a long while, it is much preferred to full-time employment and essential ownership anyways.
I personally don't mind take home tests, everything you do you can learn from and this gives you somewhat an idea of the type of company you are working with (not necessarily the work). Though they should be paid, as people that are in demand would be more willing to do them as well as the company more invested in reviewing them. However, in no way is the take home test a good indicator of how this person will ship product.