Contract to hire works

I have seen and been hired by both methods. Contract to hire, as well as a very rigorous, analystic recruiting/hiring process, and for the vast majority of tactical/execution roles, I tend to lean towards contract to hire as the best option for both parties. For the company, you save the expense of an expensive hiring process, you are able to bring in candidates to begin working almost immediately that you needed somebody working on last week, and you have almost zero risk if you make a mistake since you can cut them lose at any time. On the other side of the fence, for the candidate, you get the chance to 'try the company out' before committing, you get to show the company that you are worth more than what is printed on your paper resume, and you get to ensure that there is an appropriate cultural fit between you and your potential employer. In fact I would go as to say that contract to hire can even give the candidate the upper hand in negotiations for hiring positions. Being through both methods I have seen the rigorous method work, however I feel that one of the biggest negatives to this is that we tended to hire people that fit a mold the company was looking for, which produced good results, however having a bunch of clones (a bit of an exageration) does not allow for diversity of thought, and it is this diversity of thought that can often move a company from good to great. Being a little less structured through a contract to hire, might just allow you to bring in some new blood that might have been screened out through the standard filter technique.