Employment Tests - Yes or No?

• 1
• 2

• 

  seabombs on 12/05/2022 - 15:51

  +3

  I'm a software developer and have been interviewer and interviewee a few times now. Tests are pretty common in my industry, every place I've worked at has had them.

  It's hard to tell but in my experience tests aren't a good indicator of a good job candidate/future employee. I think there are many good devs that get too nervous/anxious about tests and bomb them. And we also have had people perform well in tests that turn out to be very average devs. The technical abilities being tested often poorly represent the actual work environment, let alone ability to work in a team, take responsibility, etc.

  But the thing I think is most helpful is just sitting down with someone and "talking shop" for an hour over a coffee/beer. What's some interesting projects you've worked on, what was good, what sucked, etc. Trade "war stories". Low stress, and you get a good feel for their interest and experience beyond only technical ability. The dozen or so times I've had a chance to do this I believe I've had good results. But of course it's just anecdotal.

• 

  ultravanilla on 12/05/2022 - 16:27

  Screening aptitude and behaviour tests are pretty common, but it might be that there's an offer they've received elsewhere that's more attractive… possibly with less hoops. They don't actually owe you an explanation or even follow up if they've found something else, even if it is the courteous thing to do.
  There's also a limit to how much time someone will give for free, especially if they're not seeing a promising outcome for their efforts.

  I think it also depends on when in the recruitment process the test is issued and what sort of test it is. Usually any sort of click through or multi choice/short answer test should be done before the interviewing stage. Test/demo of technical or practical skills at shortlisting or 2nd interview, with clear expectations outlined beforehand.

• 

  PixelPaul on 12/05/2022 - 16:39

  i have tried hiring many developers before and i came to the conclusion that no matter what they list on their resume, it might not mean anything.
  As i have had soooo many people list things that when i get them to actually put it to use, nope, they dont know it.
  So i only hire now if they do a test to actually show they really do know it.

• 

  Vote for Pedro on 12/05/2022 - 17:53

  we are struggling (like many) to get a position filled

  Seems like your org needs to reflect on those things within your locus of control. Why don’t people want to work for you.

• 

  DiscoJango on 12/05/2022 - 18:03

  +3

  30-60 minute test IF im basically shortlisted then i have no problems

  Making me upload my resume and then manually filling out those exact same details into a web form for another hour, forget it, window closed and job disregarded.

• 

  PopCounty on 12/05/2022 - 18:17

  For Social Media role, I guess this test is justified.

  For other roles, it would rather be subjective. If it’s for Microsoft, Google, FB or Netflix alike; sure even 2-3 hours test may well be justifiable. For any limbo companies, I guess not.

  I was hiring for some OK type (big 4 bank) client where they demanded Hackerrank test. Out of appx. 50 odd candidates who sat for exam, none were selected. Then we were short of candidates willing to sit for test.

  Frustrated, what I did later was, I created that subjectivity. By offering at least $10K more if they clear the test. Increased billing rates to offset this. Sure, had 3 hires in 2 weeks. While ‘competition’ still struggled.

  • 

    MrMarket on 12/05/2022 - 21:52

    for hard core top paying technical job at facebook, google etc.. they are after the top crop and they paid top money for it and 1/2 days test are the norm
    plenty of people will line up for it but they weed out most at interview rounds, so to get to the test bit you got through their filter system and this will make
    or break you with other top crop.

    it not just google and tech companies, trading shops also employed top coders to work on their system and algorithms and it the same process
    400K is not unusually for top talent plus crazy bonus if they made some crazy profit that year

• 

  kiwimex on 12/05/2022 - 18:56

  Email marketers……………enough said!

• 

  Donaldhump on 12/05/2022 - 19:57

  Went for a job that wanted me to do 2 hours presentation in front of 5 senior staff. No thanks happy to do a written test after hours, or after my interview with will be 4-5pm.

  Went for another job and in 3rd interview they u turn on their work from home and say it’s 5 days a week in the office. No thanks

• 

  MrMarket on 12/05/2022 - 21:45

  -3

  Last job I got, got called from someone I used to work with

  want to come and work for me, I said what the pay package? he said XXX, I said well 20% more than my current pay how
  about 30% if you really want me, you already know me so am I worth 30% more?
  he said ok, meet up for coffee get the paper done and dusted

  • 

    Donaldhump on 13/05/2022 - 07:31

    +6

    Cool story bro,
    How is this related to the topic?

  • 

    Cookiescream on 14/05/2022 - 21:35

    although you got negged, I can relate to this story, because it just happened to me.

    but in saying that not everyone has a network in the city/area/industry.

• 

  katykat on 12/05/2022 - 22:00

  I guess it depends on how much they want the job? It doesn't seem onerous to me, though I suppose if you're having lots of people balk at an hour then maybe see if you can streamline it to shorter?

  When I started at entry level private law firms I had to do a typing and Microsoft Office test as the second stage of my interview which took about half an hour. Then I moved onto government and it was just application and panel interview… until my current government job. It's only recent and they take screening really seriously. Multiple rounds, multiple application steps, interviews and full psychometric/aptitude testing on my part, plus a stat dec to give them permission for a full background. I'd never done psych or aptitude testing before and the psych testing alone was over 500 questions. I'd estimate it took me 2 - 3 hours plus all the work invested in the applications.

  My point is I really wanted the job and whilst I was a little thrown by how full on it was, now that I work there I understand that it's because they take finding the right staff seriously. In your case, if it's a repeat pattern that the testing is what's killing the candidate moving forward, then assess if it's really that valuable to your work and the role. At the end of the day, you either trust your instinct when they give examples in the interviews and give them the benefit of the doubt or you keep losing candidates and time because they won't take the test.

• 

  ribze1 on 12/05/2022 - 22:16

  +1

  An hour is overkill

• 

  twinbag on 12/05/2022 - 22:26

  -4

  perfectly reasonable and if they can't commit to just 1 hour to land a job, what commitment will they show in the job.

  Be greatful your selection process has weeded this loser out now.

• 

  tikei on 13/05/2022 - 00:15

  If I can get a job at a different place more easily, why would I sit through tests?
  In an employer's market you can make candidates do test as they are more desperate. Remember that in an employee's market where you can't fill the position easily, you are the more desperate party.

  • 

    FW190 on 13/05/2022 - 13:28

    I guess some employers are still living in the past where they could demand 5 years exp for an entry level job, make applicants jump through multiple hoops, take their sweet time to pick and choose, then pay the minimum wage.

• 

  Duckie2hh on 13/05/2022 - 08:23

  Definitely yes.

• 

  provision on 13/05/2022 - 09:52

  +3

  The tests are getting out of control at some places, for an average mid tier dev (~120k) role you could find a candidate doing an initial interview followed by an online skills test, then presented a take-home use case where they want an end-to-end solution which they'll give a few days to complete, then into a technical interview and lastly the cultural fit interview.

  Good luck if you're an aging working professional with a family applying for multiple roles going through these ringers.

• 

  TheBird on 13/05/2022 - 11:28

  It's not unreasonable, but it's the wrong question. The best way for you to think about it:

  The job market is really hot right now. Do you really want to put up a road block to finding an employee?

  Lets say they have 3 potential places to work at. One of them is asking them to do a 1 hour test. Unless you're a place people are beating down your door to work for you, they're much more likely to look at the other places to work at.

• 

  moph on 13/05/2022 - 11:40

  It depends. A 1 hour test is reasonable, but the candidate should be asking the question/s: "How many other people are currently taking the test?" And, "If I do well on the test, do I have the job?". If the answers to those questions are none or maybe 1 or 2 and "Yes", then it's reasonable for them to do the test. Otherwise the employer is just wasting their time.

  If a longer test is required, just employ them for the time as a casual or contractor and have them do a bit of actual work under supervision. That way you're paying them for their time, you get a good look at how they work, and no one walks away feeling like they were taken advantage of.

• 

  Lucille Bluth on 13/05/2022 - 15:57

  +1

  It is an employee's market. Another way to look at it is the right candidate will think your processes are too hard, and you will be stuck with the worst candidates that are desperate that stick around to jump through your company's hoops.

  I recently had been requested to do a 30 minute presentation about the company as part of the interview process, PowerPoint and all. No thanks. I ended up accepting a position elsewhere without much effort from my part. They ended up having to re-advertise and even contacted me again urging me to reapply.

  • 

    Marrk on 13/05/2022 - 17:17

    +1

    Agree on it being an employers market - didn’t even write a cover letter for my last 2 job offers, was contacted by recruiters on LinkedIn and just attended an interview or two.

• 

  Marrk on 13/05/2022 - 17:14

  +1

  Employers who want you to do personality/problem solving type tests are a bit of a red flag for me. After having wasted 2 hours on tests after already putting together a cover letter and doing 1-2 interviews, I would consider saying no to them in the future.

  Regarding skill based tests in the context of marketing, a 20-30 minute scenario sounds reasonable to me. I have heard of employers letting candidates know the topic 30 minutes prior to the interview in preparation for a detailed response (whether this be a presentation or document etc).

  Some marketing employers take the piss and use job interviews as a way of getting free advice x however many people they are interviewing. Have heard stories of people having their advice used on corporate websites despite not getting the position.

• 

  tio on 13/05/2022 - 18:04

  +2

  1hr test is excessive. Candidates wouldn't have a clue if the "tests" have any production values to the companies. It's like asking brickies to do 1hr test to show their skill. Run enough tests and you'll have a wall built for free.

  • 

    Lucille Bluth on 13/05/2022 - 18:29

    It's like asking brickies to do 1hr test to show their skill. Run enough tests and you'll have a wall built for free

    Good analogy

• 

  Kail on 13/05/2022 - 18:36

  What I've done in the past is ask an interview question that is essential a quick little test to make sure the candidates actually know how to do the job.

  So the role's main task was to do X.
  The question was: "Here's a simple scenario. How would you do X for this?"

  One candidate had clearly been fluffing his CV because his answer was pretty bad, it was clear he didn't actually know how to do the job he was claiming to have some experience in. The candidate we hired and is still with us years on provided a much better answer because he'd actually worked in X before, so he found it very easy to answer on the spot.

  So for your specific role, the interview question might be something like this:

  Let's say we're launching a new chocolate bar (or insert more relevant product here).
  What sorts of things would you do with social media to promote the chocolate bar?
  What email marketing do you think we would need for our new chocolate bar?
  What do you think we should make for (insert paid media channel here) for the new chocolate bar?"

  Just make sure the questions are very easy to answer if you know how to do the role, as the candidate has to answer on the spot with no preparation so you have to take that into consideration.

• 

  Guerilla89 on 13/05/2022 - 20:16

  Usually you'll find that the employees who test well will want tests to continue because it reinforces their own positive self-view and assumption that as they passed and they assume that they themselves are suitable, the test must be good.

• 

  greenplastix on 13/05/2022 - 22:32

  Love work tests. A great way to differentiate candidates and include wildcards who have potential in the role but experience may not be 100% aligned on paper. The candidates that do well in the test have been great finds. Although the answers may not be 100% correct, I can get insight as how this person performs under pressure, their logical thinking, application of analytical and conceptual knowledge to new situations and whether they give up easily (I hate blank/missing answers - give it a go!).

  It's a breath of fresh air when you get the right person in the role. As a manager, it makes training so much easier and relieves stress. Tests cut through the applicants who interview great, and may not sell themselves in written responses.

  I want someone smart, hardworking, is relatively easy going and work well in a team.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 14/05/2022 - 23:03

    Long time ago when I was still working as a sysadmin one of recruiters went out of their way to setup test for me in some rented office space. After it was all setup and I opened folder (yes, it was printed on a paper) it turned out that I was given a test clearly intended for programmers that had absolutely nothing to do with scope of my work or my qualification. In a followup call recruiter simply could not understand the difference in skill sets. Same position was popping up on a Seek every month for about a year so I guess I was not the only one.

• 

  slowey on 13/05/2022 - 23:44

  Shoot through a link to the job ad and if the pay and conditions are worth it, I’ll apply. Probably wouldn’t be thrilled about doing a test unless you’re paying above market rates though.

• 

  syousef on 14/05/2022 - 02:29

  A short test (half an hour to anything under less than half a day depending on seniority) is quite reasonable.

  Anything over that tends to be a red flag for me, except under very specific circumstances. Sometimes people are willing to do it if they want the job badly enough. Highly prestigious companies can sometimes get away with it. But the interview goes both ways. The candidate is going to understand you're not capable of gauging their suitability in a reasonable timeframe if you do multiple tests and interviews and make the whole process onerous. It's a sign of how they can expect they will be treated in the role and a good gauge of the competence of the employer as a company.

  Also if as an employer you can't rely on their qualifications to have examined their abilities and be a true reflection of what they know, their qualifications are meaningless and worth very little.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 14/05/2022 - 03:54

  +1

  Hiring managers who ask do tests are unable to determine abilities of candidate themselves, so ask yourself - do you really want to work with manager who can't assess your work?

• 

  Etster on 14/05/2022 - 07:05

  +1

  I once did an hour long interview then they made me do a test which I bombed. Never again!

• 

  slow on 14/05/2022 - 07:51

  +1

  For tech roles yes. In my previous job we wasted a lot of time interviewing people for technical roles, who couldn't answer the most basic technical question, despite fantastic resumes. We implemented a basic technical test that was quite easy as the first step, and it was very successful.

  Amazing how many IT "experts" can't answer the misg basic technical questions, that would be the minimum requirements or the role. If someone didn't have enough confidence in their technical ability to so a basic test then they were best to look elsewhere.

  If I was applying for a job that I wanted i would be happy to do a test myself as I am confident in my ability and feel it would elevate me above other candidate

• 

  quanticism on 14/05/2022 - 11:35

  I've been in 2 companies that used a take home assignment as the initial screening test for software engineers. Can take around 2-4 hours to complete. Quite a large percentage of submissions get rejected so it's definitely doing its job as a filter and prevents wasting engineers' time with a 1-1.5 hour interview.

  I'm uncertain about how many would be candidates pass up the role because they don't want to commit to the assignment though.

  • 

    apsilon on 14/05/2022 - 11:36

    How do you confirm they're the ones actually doing the work and not a mate or outsourced etc?

    • 

      quanticism on 14/05/2022 - 11:39

      We don't in the initial code review - we're not at the size where we start trying to analyse for plagiarism, etc.

      But if they pass the screening test, we have engineers interview them to test their communication and technical skill further by having them explain their code design at a high level and then introducing a requirement change for them to tackle during the interview.

      • 

        apsilon on 14/05/2022 - 11:44

        Ah I see, I'm not a coder (never interested me) so wondering how that'd work.

• 

  JamesDrudge on 14/05/2022 - 11:43

  They don't consent to your crazy policies.

  Why are people blaming the candidate when they made their own decision. A personal choice to not be exploited by AI algorithms and psychoanalytics.

  My guess is that they opened the test and said "right, I can see where this is going"; and then chose to stop. Why would we choose to work in such a dystopian organisation?

  If you are angry you lost your best candidate, then your organisation needs to shut the hell up and change.

  ---

  We have become immune to the tactics that you use on social media to shut us down. We will not be subjected to this. We will stop self-censoring and we need to speak the truth. We have to have faith where we will return to a world where integrity matters and people's dignity is respected.

  We see through your lies. If your company is that catering company? Ask yourself why it requires such psychometric tests? Was it your crappy VC that put you up to that?

  If your poll was designed to shame people into submission. We say no.

• 

  Neoika on 14/05/2022 - 11:57

  Simple, a paid test. A few hours wont cost a business much.

• 

  Roddi on 14/05/2022 - 12:01

  +1

  I'm a very experienced software developer, and often get coding tests between the first and second (final) interviews.
  Often they're nominally an hour to solve some small invented problem.
  But they also want me to showcase "enterprise best practices" and/or "web design skills" - that can't be meaningfully done in an hour.
  With a young kid I'm not going to spend 3+ hours on a job that isn't much better or worse than the next one that doesn't ask for a test.

  One company - just one - was happy with a hour long screen recording of how I worked on their problem.
  That was win-win; it was just an hour for me, and they got to see what sort of decisions I made while working on the problem.
  But if a company is going to set a test - be clear about what you want, just as you would be if you hired the candidate.
  Don't make me waste 15 minutes of my 1 hour guessing what you mean by "enterprise best practices".
  If you mean unit tests or whatever, say it.

• 

  JamesDrudge on 14/05/2022 - 12:08

  For others feeling threatened by these types of tests.

  Ask for transparency, if it isn't provided, blacklist these organisations and make your voice heard.

• 

  DarkOz on 14/05/2022 - 13:29

  a simple test that is about an hour long

  An hour long test is not simple.

• 

  jaimex2 on 14/05/2022 - 18:11

  Nope. Ask them some questions and pick someone.
  You're wasting your own time as much as theirs.

  Fire them during probation if they lied or suck.

• 

  evieee on 14/05/2022 - 22:02

  I'll only do tests that long for graduate programs, and even theirs aren't that long, or I'd do it for a dream job. But yeah, it's just so long, especially when it's a worker's market, so between a job that's happy to hire me vs an hour of testing, I'd pick the former. However I am struggling with post covid fatigue so I’m probably being a bit more blunt than usual.

• 

  azero on 20/05/2022 - 18:30

  Do it during the interview and 1 hour is too long.

  For developers I ask them to write a simple code like finding the sum of elements on an int array. Doesn't even need to compile. A minute of that is enough to guage their level.

  And you'd be surprised at the number of people who fails at that.

• 

  SlavOz on 29/05/2022 - 19:24

  Testing competency or technical knowledge, like what you are or aren't allowed to do in a certain situations, is fine.

  But for creative jobs in the marketing sector (social media manager would definitely count), it's an absolute rort. That's what portfolios are for.

  I used to work in graphic design and have had multiple interviews where employers requested a 1-2 hour task. Some are proper enough to devise a "fake" task that isn't related to their business, just to make sure they are not exploiting you for free work. But nowadays most employers shamelessly turn a full-scale internal project into a recruitment task.

  "Please design a landing page for our new ad campaign with the following keywords. Brand guidelines are attached for you to use". I did it once, for Airtasker (yes I will name and shame the dirtbags), during presentation they had the gall to tell me that I didn't spend enough time on the task because some things were missing…never got the job but a few weeks later I noticed an ad on their social media page that looked very similar to my concept…

  Never again. Whenever I get asked I politely tell them I only do tasks after I've been offered a job or at least feel that there is a good chance I might get it. Not doing a task just for the right to have an interview. Forget it.

• 1
• 2