Performance art in hiring
Hiring is an inherently imperfect process. Employers want to make sure that they make hiring decisions based on skill, competency, and the elusive cultural fit. One of the tactics commonly used by hiring companies to assess the quality and ability of a candidate is to ask candidates to do sample work. This came into vogue about 20 years ago, and from what I hear from my clients, it’s increasing in popularity.
Here’s how the “job audition” typically goes. You go through 2-3 rounds of interviews and are then asked to complete a project that aligns with the role for which you are interviewing. For example, if you’re interviewing for a marketing role, the employer may ask you to look at their products and solutions and create a social media plan that will generate leads. Most clients with whom I speak do not like being asked to do so. They feel that it’s an imposition on their time and don’t embrace the idea of doing free work for an employer. Here’s what some people have told me:
They said the project should only take 2-3 hours, but I wound up spending more time on it because I wanted to really stand out. After my presentation, I never heard anything from the company again. Not thanks, but no thanks, no feedback, exactly nada.
I am a software developer with more than ten years of experience. Not only did I have to take a coding test to prove that I knew the languages I claimed to know, but they also wanted me to find—and solve--a deliberately planted bug in one of their test environments.
I was okay with preparing a media plan and giving a presentation. What I didn’t like was what they called a “critical thinking assessment.” Basically, I had to read a pseudo case study about a fictional country that was overrun with a multitude of problems—lack of education, war, crop failure, pestilence. I was supposed to decide which of these problems should be tackled first and why. Clearly, this was a situation where there was no “right” answer, but I didn’t understand how the exercise was at all relevant to the role at hand.
I’m a graphic designer. I have an extensive portfolio. Whenever I’m asked to do a project, I decline. My work speaks for itself and I am not going to do a job for free.
On the whole, candidates’ objections are around the time spent doing these projects without being compensated and the concern that the company will use their work without hiring them. These are valid concerns. But what about this type of exercise that a client recently shared with me? She is interviewing with a company that has a mandatory, paid “mutual trial” period of 30 or 60 days, which was described to her as such: “You will have access to everything you will need – data, people, tools, and will be part of regularly scheduled meetings so you can see behind the curtain into what your work life will be like. This is our way of showing you who we are and giving you a chance to determine if you can build your career here.” Although this type of assessment would be paid, it is still a considerable investment of my client’s time, with no promises of employment at the other end. Even though they do not expect her to work full time during the 30-60 days, this exercise would suck up a lot of her energy.
If you’re asked to complete a project, write a plan, design a new process, or enter into a “mutual trial” BEFORE an offer of employment is extended, should you do it? No. You should not. The onus of hiring the best person for the job is on the employer, not the candidates. The hiring company needs to do a better job attracting, evaluating, and hiring talent without asking them to perform parlor tricks.