Employment Tests - Yes or No?

Would love to get the OzBargain community's thoughts on employment tests.

I work in the Digital Marketing space and we are struggling (like many) to get a position filled. We had a candidate who has now gone MIA because we have asked them to complete a simple test that is about an hour long. Just to get a gauge of their experience. No right or wrong answer, just wanted to get an understanding to make sure they are suitable for the job.

This job is social media, email marketing and some other paid media channels. It doesn't relate to technical unfortunately.

I work specifically as a Developer and started in a slightly junior support technical role where I had to complete a 3 hour Development Test. My now junior guy, had to complete the same 6 months ago.

Anyway, long story short - Does the community think that a test for a position is reasonable?

Poll Options

  • 399
  • 187
  • 35
    Don't Care


  • +85

    Hour long test depending on the actual position and $ seems long

    He may have been for several jobs sitting for "hour" long tests that took longer and got nowhere.

    • +80

      This. Make it 10 minutes and we can talk. But an hour can be quite annoying if you already have a full time job, kids and a social life.

      Also, employers need to realise that good people will always find jobs and can afford to decline doing these kinds of tests. However, the not-so-good ones that are desperate for work will gladly do the test.

      You are indeed weeding out people, but the wrong ones.

      • +17

        Yep. I dropped a job that wanted me to do a test like a hot potato.

        I think people who aren’t desperate won’t do it. Also an hour long test is not simple

      • +1

        This. I found a better paying job after refusing to take tests at 2 companies wanting 3+ hours of tests, each.

    • +24

      There are also people that test terribly and perform well at their jobs! I started my career as a software engineer and had I been tested I would have failed most likely. In the end I was there for 5 years and was successful in the role.

      At other companies, we have tested candidates and they did terribly and I have ended up working with some in later roles and found them to be quite good.

      Not everyone excels in an examination setting is what I am trying to say.

      • +2

        That's true and I consider myself in that category. I'm very much hands on technical so it depends on the structure/type of test.

      • +1

        I set up some of these tests for different teams where I used to work (for software engineering) and I used good colleagues of mine (including very junior ones) as a marker for the test. They all scored very high and completed the tests very quickly.

        Some people are too good at bullshitting to not have a basic problem solving test on entry; I wouldn't dream of not having one having seen some truly incompetent results.

      • +1

        Or the others might have been even more successful than you :)

  • +19

    The market for developers is very hot at the moment. It is extremely hard to get any good people - still lots of crappy people available though.

    I think a test is reasonable if you dont have an interviewer who can ask pointed questions. If you are a developer yourself and are interviewing the candidate; you should be able to quickly gauge his competency without requiring a test during an hour long interview.

    Where the tests help is weeding out crappy candidates before you need to waste your time interviewing them. If you've already interviewed them; then I think a test afterwards should not be required.

    • +13

      Where the tests help is weeding out crappy candidates before you need to waste your time interviewing them. If you've already interviewed them; then I think a test afterwards should not be required.

      I am of the opposite opinion on this.

      An hour long test before I've even had the opportunity for an interview is a bit extreme - I'd certainly be put off by it.

      An interview goes both ways. It's an opportunity for me to ask questions and understand the company and the role, as much as it is for the employer to understand the me, my skills and experience.

      It might be different if I was desperate for a job - but that's not a good representation of the job market right now.

      Why should I commit an entire hour of my time, before I am even given an opportunity to meet who I'll be working for.

      • -7

        I think you overestimate the value of your time - for a good job that you want, an hour is nothing

        • +5

          I think assuming it's a "good job that I want" is getting a bit too specific and hypothetical. Why can't it be an average job asking people to sit for a 1 hour test?

          And how do I know it's a "good job that I want" if they won't give me the opportunity to even meet them first?

          As I said, an interview is an opportunity for me to vet them as much as it is for them to vet me. I might learn in the interview that the role or company isn't what I'm looking for.

          Not everyone looking for a new job is desperate to find one, or in a hurry to leave what they've already got. If they show that they're genuinely interested me, I'll be much more inclined to sit a test. But unless they're some top tier organisation, the expectation of the applicant having to sit an hour long test before even getting an interview is a bit much - especially when OP is referring to a marketing position - not a technical position.

          • @Harold Halfprice: That's the difference between a company seeking candidates out and a candidate applying; if it's not a job that you want then you shouldn't be applying. As for how you know whether you think it is a good job for you - you should absolutely also do research about a company/talk to people if you know anyone who works there or has worked there or used their services/products etc. On the other side of that if it's not a job you want but you need a job, then it is a job you want.

            The candidates can certainly take positions that have shorter interviews/don't require tests like these but blindly encouraging people to do that when plenty of amazing companies have these tests isn't good blanket advice regardless of whether the position is a marketing one or a technical one.

            If I was looking for a social media marketing position, you can be sure I would be looking at only top tier organisations where I can get other experience and training at the same time/down the track.

            • +1

              @sakurashu: That's the thing though isn't it, the people in least need of a job are typically the best, so these barriers just cut out top talent

              I've dropped job applications because they clearly have no respect for my time, if they're demanding hours of unpaid work now, they'll expect it later too, it's the biggest red flag I can think of

    • If you are a developer yourself and are interviewing the candidate; you should be able to quickly gauge his competency without requiring a test during an hour long interview.

      Depends on how technical you want the interview to be, where I've been the interviewers include a non technical person and the questions tend around work history at a higher level and fit /interpersonal situations. For that the candidate can present very well describing projects they've worked on while lacking the technical skills to work across all of it.

      • We run our interviews with one technical person and one non-technical person. The technical questions do go deep into their technical history and you can tell from just talking if they really know their stuff or not. You dont need to them write code to show that - a good candidate would be able to learn and find the answers quickly rather than be able to do it on the spot.

        I've been in interviews where it feels like the candidate is just repeating what they read on Wikipedia; just scratch the surface a little bit and you knew they had no idea.

        • My experience with job interviews was much the same. It didn't much matter what questions we asked - it was about the way the candidate responded and not the actual response. It's better to say you don't know something but do know how to find out than it is to pretend you know and spout a lot of bs (lying in an interview is not a good look).

    • How is it very hot? Which kind of developers are needed?

    • "Where the tests help is weeding out crappy candidates before you need to waste your time interviewing them."

      And what about wasting applicants' time with what they will see as a crappy employer? You forget who has the whip hand in the current job market for developers.

      A 10 minute test should be plenty for just basic screening. If you are lucky enough to get a good shortlist from that then by all means give your serious candidates more thorough screening at interview. But depending on the job in the current market you may have to just take what you can get.

  • Another way of doing employment tests? Multiple levels of interviews. These aren't frowned upon so yes, it's fine.

    • This can be frowned upon as well in that I have taken the other offer which didn't have the bs

      You can fire people for no reason for fiest six months in oz. That's your interview

  • +16

    If candidate had open source work or portfolio and you request them to do unpaid open ended work, they might think you're full of it. Or they have great references, or other jobs, etc.

    Ask them to do a 1 hour (ideally paid) session to implement/fix some code from your codebase, rubberduck/pair with a senior/lead. Not only will your candidate see the culture, code quality, etc and may like to work for you. Or run. AND YOU can see their thought process and how they work.

  • +6

    i didn't mind taking the Ozbargain exam

    • +2

      there should be an ozbargain test!!

      (something similar to wikipediholism test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipediholism_test)

      • +1

        Wow - didn't do the full test but by a skim of the questions I have a very healthy relationship with Wikipedia and use it occasionally to find information.

    • +3

      I failed the first 3 times. Also, I can't remember if I ever thanked you for sending me the answer sheet. So here it is… Thank you xx

      • +3

        don't let the mods know about the answer sheet.. otherwise they'll get us to retake the exam. xx

        • +1

          It's ok guys. I know where Scotty saves the test, so I got your back ;)

  • +12

    I think a test is reasonable as long as it's length is suitable and it's at the start of the process. If they've been through several interview rounds already and you suddenly want them to spend an hour doing a test then it could be seen as "When's this process going to end? Are they just wasting my time?" compared to having the test as essentially the opening round to weed out anyone unqualified up front.

    • +1

      Interesting - I disagree. Having the test at the start of the process means the employer is wasting the time of every candidate except the one who gets the job. Having been both an employer and an employee I see it as more respectful and appropriate to have a test as the last stage in the process, where only the 2-3 shortlisted candidates will be tested, so they know that if they do well on the test then there is a high chance that they'll get the job.

      • I can see that POV but then you're wasting your time interviewing dozens of candidates that may not actually have the skills they claim but interview well. I prefer not to test at all and my last role we didn't, we just made sure we asked the right questions and people were then hired as casuals for 3 months as a probation period. Worked well for us and I was happy with the dozen I hired while there.

        • I guess this makes sense in an industry where “job applicants significantly exaggerating or lying about their skills in a way that is not detectable in an interview” is a thing. I haven’t found that to be the common in the areas I’ve worked.

  • +5

    Is the after a couple of rounds of interviews or before?

    Most people won't want to put in unpaid effort unless they know it will land them the job they want.

    • +1

      Wow things have changed incredibly since I was a grad. Back then you had 1000s to people lining up for a single job and would bend over backwards to even get interviewed.

      • +18

        Exactly, I'm so glad the power dynamic has shifted towards the workers.

  • Would love to get the OzBargain community's thoughts on employment tests.

    I always incorporate a practical assessment task with the candidates I've shortlisted for an interview.

    We had a candidate who has now gone MIA because we have asked them to complete a simple test that is about an hour long.

    Be wary of cause and correlation mate. Is it possible they're dealing with a family emergency of some sort? Just a thought.

    Just to get a gauge of their experience. No right or wrong answer, just wanted to get an understanding to make sure they are suitable for the job.

    Absolutely reasonable.

    Anyway, long story short - Does the community think that a test for a position is reasonable?


  • +2

    Strange. I wouldn't have thought an hour long test is unreasonable. Without knowledge of your hiring process, I would view it as one of the rounds of interview.

    That said, hiring processes generally need to be foreshortened. If you can't determine whether someone's fit for your organisation after two well structured interviews and possibly a test such as this, the hiring process is broken.

  • I don't mind it assuming its about an hour long AND I'm already on the way in the job (like CV approved for example and they're obvious interested) and its actually useful (like needing to ensure I do have technical capability I say I do). I don't like psychometric tests where its basically used just to cull the list of applicants or behavioral tests (I did one once that was like "here is a tree in the dessert, from 0 to 9 how would you rate this on happiness, sadness etc").

    Essentially I don't want to feel like you're wasting my time (so not too long). Also I want the test to relate to the work (what I expect to be doing) too many times you get a test asking for a specific computing algorithm, just for the job to be updating CSS sheets. Or planning a commercial product sales project, for the job to just be wrote excel/documentation of a product. Or creating a finance model, when all they do is is copy+paste into spreadsheets.

  • +16

    This job is social media, email marketing and some other paid media channels. It doesn't relate to technical unfortunately.

    no idea why you would need an hour long test for what is seemingly a relatively junior admin role, but whatever……..

    anyway, my guess is, there are probably less hoops to jump through with other employers, so the canindate(s) went elsewhere.

  • +2

    A test is reasonable but not 3 hours, especially if they have a job already and they think they aren't going to get this one. Or they are just burnt out. I reckon over 3.5/4 interviews I did in person pre-covid were a total waste of time - but they were not technical roles. I applied for a NSW Trains apprenticeship years back online on a whim and did their initial tests, I think overall that took under an hour.

  • -2

    If you want the job and a genuinely suitable candidate you'll do it.

  • +40

    I work in the Digital Marketing space and we are struggling (like many) to get a position filled

    No, you are struggling to find someone to do the work at the pay rate/conditions you are offering. This is what employers need to start waking up to. It's not hard to fill positions, it's hard to fill the positions when you want to offer poor wages or poor working conditions or work life balance.

    No right or wrong answer, just wanted to get an understanding to make sure they are suitable for the job.

    This is literally the dictionary definition of right or wrong answers. If they get the test all wrong, would they still be considered suitable for the job? No, I would think not, ergo, there are wrong answers.

    While I understand a need to test some people on their stated ability, this is what the interview is for. You go over their CV and ask questions related to the work they are doing and have done. They either answer them to your satisfaction or they don't. The whole "extra testing" comes under "probationary period." They can either perform the work or not. If they can, you give them a permanent position. If they cannot, you let them go within the contract of their probation and you find someone else.

    As a diagnostic technician, if a potential employer asked me to come in and do an hours worth of vehicle troubleshooting to "check if I can do what I say I can do", I would politely decline and move onto the next offer.

    There is a shift in power happening in the employment sphere at the moment where by people are not really willing to be treated like shit for a company's profits. People are starting to wake up that employers need them more than they need the employers, so if the people don't want to be messed about by an employer that wants them, there are another dozen or more places that will happily take them on.

    So, yes, by all means test people, but do it as part of the interview process. That is what it is for. Don't call people back a few days/week later and tell them they need to come in and do further testing. Most will see it as a waste of time or as an insult.

    • +20

      No, you are struggling to find someone to do the work at the pay rate/conditions you are offering. This is what employers need to start waking up to. It's not hard to fill positions, it's hard to fill the positions when you want to offer poor wages or poor working conditions or work life balance.

      This is 100% why my work is a revolving door of staff

      • +26

        I love all the crying and whining hospitality venues sooking it up at the moment with claims of “we can’t find anyone. No one wants to work any more…”

        No, you arseholes, people want to work, it’s just that no one wants to work for less than a minimum living wage in a back breaking job that has no flexibility and where they get treated as second class citizens.

        When you treat your profits as more important than your people, you are always going to have problems sourcing and/or keeping staff.

        • +1

          No one wants to be permanently trapped in night shift at the pub, it destroys your life haha and it pays badly. I’ve done it a bunch of times

        • +2

          Also the whining about "can't find anyone with the right skills, so we need to import someone".

          If you need particular skills then hire someone with aptitude and train them with the skills you require.

          • +4

            @gesco: What they mean is "We cant find anyone with the right skill set who will do it for the wages of someone from a 3rd world country…"

    • +14

      Cheap workers aint good,
      Good workers aint cheap.

      Pretty much sums up most jobs at the moment, it’s definitely a worker’s market at the moment. If pay and conditions aren’t right, people will walk/not come in in the first place.

      • +2

        relevant username

  • +5

    Do you know that they went MIA because of the test? Most candidates have multiple jobs on the go at once these days, they might have gotten another. Far too many candidates get zero response from recruiters these days, so they're happy to give zero response in return.

    An hour seems on the long side, but not unreasonable. I'm testing the waters on a few jobs at the moment, two or three hour long interviews isn't uncommon.

    Personally I always test candidates as well, weeds out a lot of the bullshitters. You can prepare for hours to do an interview and nail it, you can't fake having years of knowledge to pass a test.

  • +3

    Do the test in person as part of the interview process. You can tell pretty quickly if someone is bullshitting about their ability or not.

    • +1

      If you yourself know subject you can figure out skills of interviewee in 5-15 minutes of informal technical conversation. If you don't - you should not be assessing knowledge of candidate, with or without test.

  • -1

    …has now gone MIA because we have asked them to complete a simple test that is about an hour long.

    He was probably lying his way through the interview and got past everything then thought that he wouldn't be able to lie through a test (and just decided to bail instead of getting busted).

  • +3

    Was the requirement to complete an employment test included in the direct/recruiter job ad?

  • +6

    Tests are standard for junior developer roles but as this is a marketing role I think the test is really acting as a barrier. The candidate may be subject to similar tests from other companies so they are just going to pick the one with less hurdles.

    Also depends on how competitive the market is and how junior the role is; a senior role candidate could be insulted at being asked to perform a test

    As alternative could you request samples of projects they have worked on

  • +10

    I've bailed from multiple job offers because of the endless number of these in addition to the multiple rounds of video/in person interviews, BHP, Rio all wanted me to come and interview for them but they wanted me to complete one of these prior. At this stage everything is on my resume and it was a fairly senior position so the competency was already demonstrated in my prior work.

    Maybe for a highly competitive grad job, but everything above that it's largely on experience and not pattern recognition/how you respond to a fictional situation. This can be hashed out in the interview.

    The current place i worked got me because they were agile.
    I told them i was currently weighing up an offer and they had one on the table within 3 days - skipping all other procedures, it's the nature of the market, employees don't want to be screwed around. Time is money.

    • yeah, but we don't all have such a public background like you do! Being a highly respected TV personality you can afford to bail from the process and still get offered the job…

      I agree with others who say it needs to be part of the weeding out process at the beginning and not wasting time at the end.

      I once interviewed for a rival Bank position, a few days/week later was called back for a second interview, called back again for a "no wrong answer" test, they even checked one of my references so I thought 'I had it in the bag'…then no response for 2 weeks until the recruiter called me apologising for being messed around as the Bank had selected an internal applicant and were stringing me along until they signed the employment offer!

    • +2

      Yep, some companies think it is called being diligent, but really in most cases its just because they are poor at recruiting.

      My last 4 jobs (over 10 years) at big well known companies went like this: one was just a single interview at their office, another was one interview at their office and a second sanity check interview where they offered me the job - second one was like 30 minutes, essentially just meeting a different manager, another I went out for breakfast with the hiring manager - that was the interview, my current job was a single interview done over Microsoft Teams.

      Compared to 15 years ago where there were small no name companies that had me do a test and like 3 interviews before turning me down anyway.

  • +7

    While you were busy lining up this test, it sounds like they found a better offer. He probably applied for dozens of jobs, not just for your position. If you really wanted the employee you should have made an offer instead, but it sounds like you aren't all that desperate for an employee at the moment if you can hum and haw over one you think you might be able to use.

  • +6

    I'd condense it to 20 minutes and make it part of an hour long interview.

    Maybe even look at the skills they claim to have and adjust the exam to prove some of it.

  • Always answer yes to employment tests.

  • +2

    "Reasonable" is defined by circumstance.

    A short test is reasonable when jobs aren't easy to come by and you have to compete for them. It's less reasonable when job offers are coming in left right and center, especially when the conditions and pay aren't something to write home about.

    By the way, just because they didn't respond after you asked them to take a test doesn't mean it was the test that decided it for them. They probably applied for many jobs, and secured a better one while you were still going through the interview process.

  • +5

    dude stop giving no right or wrong question that shit is bullshit

    • +2

      You realise those tests aren't actually no wrong answer, that's just the BS they tell you so you answer honestly.

      It's a personality test to see if you are the 'right fit'. There is definitely a wrong answer, and if your results fall in the wrong band your resume will be thrown out.

      You have to say that you are a natural leader, you like going to parties, you never get angry, you enjoy collaborative work etc etc BS.

  • +5

    I did a 20 minute test. An hour seems a bit much. I'd begrudge wasting an hour of my time.

  • Yes. This is to separate people who are good fit for the job versus from people who are only good on paper and words 💪🏿😷

    • +6

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

      On the other hand, any employee willing to fill the role is better than no employee at all. You can hardly run a business if you hire no one because you can't find someone who ticks all your boxes and is willing to jump through all your hoops. Sometimes it's better to hire who is available even if they are only half as productive as your "ideal" employee. And if you're offering something close to minimum wage or standard industry pay, then you probably never will get your 100% ideal employee anyway. We all wish we could hire a junior who is as capable as a senior and who will act grateful for low pay, and will be too scared to lose their job to ever question or complain. But if you can't find that "perfect" employee then you should cast a wider net, or start scaling your business back and take on fewer clients. Or just offer more pay so you can attract real talent.

  • +1

    It depends on if I was applying or being recruited.

    I’d do a test, sure, but unless you were offering something special (pay, benefits) I probably wouldn’t bother. I’ve had recruiters try to set up all kinds of projects and presentations and panel interviews, which I’m more than happy to turn down. If I don’t need your job, your long-winded process isn’t my problem.

    • +2

      My biggest gripe with some of these mobs is submitting a resume, then having to re fill all their dumb questions that are in the resume already. You can do keyword searches people, (profanity) use them.

  • +1

    If you were upfront about the need to do the test in the job ad before they applied then its reasonable. Otherwise, if you've given it to them near the end of the process e.g. after the interview, I think its unreasonable.

  • +2

    Unless the test is for genuine competency (such as a copywriting exercise for a copywriter or technical competency test for developers), you’re wasting everyone’s time. If it’s one of those cottage industries of Myers-Briggs-based personality “assessments”, then the results are as good as useless. I’ve done lots of these sorts of tests as a candidate and worked in places where candidates have been made to undertake them. I can’t think of a single useful insight I’ve had from any of them. You’d may as well read a horoscope.

    • +1

      Personality testing in general is a bit iffy considering how traits like agreeableness or neuroticism could influence responses in the first place, not to mention the role of any biases or the fact that money, status, etc. are on the line. I'm not sure if there is any literature pertinent to this, though.

      I've completed the MBTI a bunch of times during my study and just out of curiosity, and received a different result each time.

  • +2

    They probably just got another job… Last time I applied every place wanted me to do some kind of assignment or test. I started submitting them and got job offers and accepted one before completing all the tests at all the places.

  • +10

    I'm over them, in IT they are all just random questions pulled from books. I'd just google them if I was actually needing the info in the position, we don't remember 50 million little facts in our head for the rest of our lives.

    Don't even get me started on those personality quiz's.

    Ideally, you should be asking relevant questions in the interview process to gauge their experience. Ask them how they would achieve X in Y scenario.

  • I've done these take-home tests/assessments, and they're boring AF, and one even took 4 hours. This was 2010 though.

    I've hired people into Campaign analyst style roles, and if they said they were competent in SQL I had a 15-20min test to complete on the spot. This was purely done due to the department being stung for people claiming abilities they couldn't do.

    In contrast to this is my current role, where I was interviewed by 2 hiring manager level people (no first round) and was peppered with technical questions for 20mins. No pre-tests, or anything after, and it was only a 30min interview. I got the job.

    I think you'll have a hard time in the current climate getting people to complete things like this, unless you're offering top dollar.

  • +3

    I think an hour long test is completely unreasonable in the circumstances. You should be able to tell from your interview whether they fit in with your organization and whether they can back up the skills and experience listed on their CV. Maybe a 10-15 minute test would be more reasonable as part of the interview, but 1 whole hour? No thanks. I can think of only 4 occasions in nearly 20 years where I've been asked to do a test, 3 of them were 45-60 min tests after having already spend as much time interviewing, what a waste of 2 hours, the 4th occasion was basically a pop quiz in the middle of the interview to validate some basic knowledge - far more reasonable.

    The probationary period essentially becomes the test, if they can't do the work then there is something wrong with the interview process and you can cut them loose and find someone better.

  • +2

    It sort of depends on what you were after and how the role is i guess. I was surprised to hear a colleague who lost his job at my company, go to a few interviews and in all the interviews there was not 1 technical question (his job in my company was purely a technical role), I then realised its because a lot of companies feel its more about getting the right personality to fit into a team and work well with others and team members. And in terms of technical side of things, most things can be taught / trained or learnt while on the job.

    Having seen several team members come and go in my area as well as managers. I have to agree, whats more crucial for team morale and work efficiency is actually having good team members able to get along and work well together and even become friends or at least work friends etc and treat each other with respect and help one another as opposed to trying to back stab and betray and do anything to try to make themselves look better at the cost of the rest of the team.

    • +1

      I have to agree. An incompetent manager often keeps the high performing suckup in the team, not realising that their other good staff are leaving because of it.

      In the graph below they would be the "challenge". High performance but poor attitude. Unfortunately it's usually easier to change jobs than weed out these kinds of people


      • +1

        Yup 100% thats what happened to our team. This one guy basically destroyed the entire team, lots of people left, others just lost interest in the work. Because he would keep playing everyone against each other and always had the manager's ear by only speaking to everyone privately and never in a group situation.

      • OMG this is totally me!

  • +1

    I think reasonable if it's a test that gauges actual technical skills that the job requires, but not if it's a behavioural test or some similar nonsense. You'd also want a positive outcome to lead to an offer and not yet another interview.

  • It's a reasonable request but also bare in mind though the candidate may also be looking for the best option. As such, if they feel they have to constantly demonstrate with various tests, questions, multiple interviews, they may just take an easier option.

    We've recently gone from having 2 interviews to 1 to streamline the process.

  • Every job i've gotten has made me sit at least a basic aptitude test + psych test. Takes around 1hr. So i'm not that bothered by it, and actually (since i'm a nerd) i enjoy the tests

  • +1

    If you make it clear I'm like the top candidate and test is a final screening over another interview stage maybe? It really depends on the number of interviews. 1hr is kinda long though.

  • Really depends on the role - I'm an illustrator and had to do a 1hr timed art (personality and IQ for one of them lol) test before being accepted for 2 of my previous roles.. Though for my latest job there wasn't any test but I suppose that's what the probation period is for.

    The technical tests are valid but not sure of the personality quizzes don't care for those ESFP INTJ ABCD kind of things.

  • +2

    When I joined the Public Service back in the dark ages I had to sit an exam over two weekends of 8 hours duration (4 hours each Saturday). Now days apparently a 1 hour test is too long of too inconvenient. Hahahaha………

    • Wow 8 hours! Now they give you half an hour to write 500 words…

  • I think it's fair if it's screening the preferred candidate. I've been in situations where it was a "complete an assignment from the attached data and then present to us your analysis", this was given to the top 4 candidates and took several hours to complete and collate the presentation. I didnt get the role but was asked to apply for a similar role with the company about a year later. I declined to even apply.

  • Here's a bunnings $100 voucher to recoup your test time.

    • More incentive to complete tests than to work a job. Sit 40 tests a week for a measly $4,000 per week in gift cards.

  • +1

    I hope you are paying candidates for their time… you are offing payment… aren't you?

    You certain the worthiness from curriculum-life, not make them sit an hour long fire hoop for - nothing

  • +1

    I just went through the job recruitment process for a couple of companies and they all asked me to do an assignment over a week. at first i was annoyed at how much work was needed, but during the process it allowed me to understand the business better, and decide if i really wanted the role, and also eases any imposter syndrome i might have going into the role because they know 100% my capabilities.

  • +1

    I would say yes, however there should be incentives for candidates to complete. Only ask shortlisted candidates to do the test.

  • An hour test is fine. (Three is not though, what a waste of time)

  • To me it depends where in the recruitment and selection process, I'm being asked to do it. Spending my time at the beginning no, but if I can see that I've progressed through and the organisation has gone to some effort to interview or chat with me first, then i wouldn't mind…if i truely wanted the position. Annoying but good they went MIA, at least you know they're not interested and you can shift focus elsewhere.

Login or Join to leave a comment