Strange Hiring Process

Post Reply New Topic

I finally made it on the short list with a company. I went through the first part of the interview process, and then they asked me to complete a project to show I could manage the job. Basically, they gave me a weeks worth of work, and demanded I finish it, unpaid and to their specifications, in half that time in order to make it to the next step in the interview process. I did it, but it kind of feels wrong. I have a resume. I have references. I have a portfolio. But apparently none of that proved I could do the job? Has anyone else experienced this? Is this a normal thing? I recently moved, so I thought maybe it was just the companies around here had...odd hiring practices, but I'm not sure. They keep telling me they have to postpone going over the work I did, and the second round of interviews, so I'm not sure what to think. Anyone have any advice?

Doing a weeks worth of work in half that time is uncommon, but requesting a sample work to their specifications is not.
A resume is nice and all, but it is no proof you can work to requested specifications, or that it has been 'beautified' (as most are).

Which country are you in, and what industry is the job in?

Requesting a work sample is common, but having you work a sample is illegal in many jurisdictions. The line is generally drawn at business case interviews, where the work is on a fictitious client/project and takes no more than a few hours.

I would be skeptical of this employer, because even if it's legal where you are, it's an unethical recruiting practice.

Years ago, I have had this experience once, with a California company,

In 2000, when applying as designer, a rather elaborate design project, better part of a week

A handful of other experiences with tests and so forth, often that take basically half a day, a good four hours. But that design project was quite a bit more.

This is the part where you need to be very strategic. A lot of companies are disorganized. Or, the actual managers running things are so stretched thin, maybe already working 80 hours a week, that they don't have time to hire some help! Which is kind of a crazy state of affairs, but so be it.

You don't want to hound them, you don't want to pester them. But you don't want to completely nonfollow through either. There's a happy medium.

Maybe you can call them again once a full two weeks has passed, and the early part of the week like Monday or Tuesday often gets a better response? What do other people think? This is simply my best judgment call.

Deadlines are usually on Friday, so Thursday and Friday are not good. Monday is hit or miss--some people are bright and rested from the weekend, others are miserable to be back at work. Wednesday is a safe day to call, it's usually the slowest day of the week. Tuesday is "get stuff done day"--if recruiting is a priority, this is a good day to get in touch. Mornings are better than afternoons, but 8am to 10am are typical meeting hours. 11:30am is too late, lunch is on the mind by then. So that leaves 10am to 11:30am on Tuesday. YMMV.

One successful demonstration trumps a thousand assumptions of failure.

At one of my former employer's, there was a large number of people applying for work in the Service Department. Many of those who passed the initial screening process, passed the interviews, and showed up for work, quickly demonstrated that they either could not do the work, could not handle the pressure of the job, or both.

So I introduced a test: I would first explain to the pre-screened candidates how a certain module should work, and then ask them to find out why it would not work. The module was one of several of the same type with different intentionally-induced failures. The candidate would have all of the necessary tools and test equipment at their disposal, and an hour to complete the test (most of the production-line staff needed less than twelve minutes to trouble-shoot a single module).

Those who could trouble-shoot the first module were given another module to troubleshoot. This process went on until the hour was up or I ran out of modules, whichever came first. Then a score was generated by the modules successfully trouble-shot and the time it took to determine the fault.

Thus, a person who could not correctly troubleshoot even one module in an hour was given a score of '0' (zero). All ten modules earned a '10' (ten). The number of minutes left in the hour were tacked on as a decimal fraction - 0.00 was the worst score, and 10.60 was (hypothetically) the best.

Only the highest-scoring candidates were given an offer, and most of the scores were either 5.00 or 6.00, with no one ever scoring higher than 8.00 (even me).

I had to stop administering this test because too many candidates left the testing area all teary-eyed and anxious from having to endure the stress of the examination - they either froze or 'freaked'. That is, they nearly panicked as soon as they were confronted with the need to demonstrate what they had already claimed they could do.

I left that company after that, because Management started blaming me for the inevitable decline in the efficiency of our Service Department.

Fnord, I'm surprised management ever approved your method, and what they said makes sense. The recruitment process is a two way street--they're also interviewing you. The most talented people have their pick of where to work, so they are probably not going to sign with a company that sees fit to administer an exam during the interview. I would personally find that disrespectful, and would turn down an offer for that reason alone. I've turned down offers over much less offensive things.

I'm in America. I moved from NYC to Ohio to be closer to family, but golly there are practically no jobs out here in comparison. The job I'm applying for is interactive graphic design. I've got years of experience, and my resume and portfolio reflect that. Though, I wasn't aware that people usually lie on their resume? Is that really a thing?

Anyway, the “test” they gave me was not a test. I've taken tests as a part of the application process. Even more extreme ones like Fnord is talking about...though, not quite that extreme. Those are legal, and they make sense, I guess. But this was an assignment, not a test, not a work sample. They basically made me do a weeks worth of work. In less than a week. For the possibility of getting a second interview. I'm fairly certain it's illegal. It was, at least, in NYC. It makes me a little nervous, because if they're doing this what other things are they doing? But, Aardvark, you said you were in the same industry. Is this common enough I shouldn't worry? And I've just been fantastically lucky not to come across it before.

Some people might might embellish a little bit, but I think outright lying is uncommon.


This is against federal law.

You find examinations offensive? Does it offend you to have to endure a probationary period, too? Are you also offended when a potential employer checks your references, credit history, and criminal record? I find it offensive when people 'embellish' their credentials and work histories.

Besides, what is an employer supposed to do, trust that everything complete strangers say about themselves is true?

As for that "two-way street" concept, the current job market is still more advantageous to the employer. With literally hundreds of people looking for a well-paying job, employers are the ones who can afford to be picky, while unemployed job-seekers can't afford much of anything

That sounds very illegal OP.

It looks like they're using the applicant's work to get work done without having to pay for it. Heck its possible there isn't even a job opening and they simply keep the listing up to keep attracting applicants to work for free for them.

Okay, so it's illegal. What do I do about it? Like Fnord said the job market is advantageous for the employers. If I report them would I end up blacklisted from other companies in the area? I need to get a job here, but I don't want to be taken advantage of either.

If they are in lieu of a job interview, which I have taken the time to network and apply for with the expectation of being treated with the same dignity and respect that the interviewer expects by inviting me, then yes. If they are in a setting where an exam is customary, such as licensing, then no. The difference is, if I've accepted an interview, I've agreed to take time out of my day (in addition to applying and networking), travel to your office and interview. I have not agreed to sit for an exam. If that's what it is, call it that, it's not an interview. I may or may not agree to it then, but at least I know what I'm agreeing to.


It depends. I would find a probationary period inappropriate if the employer recruited me from a recruitment pipeline to which I no longer have access solely because I accepted the job offer. That means, in exchange for accepting the offer and losing a valuable benefit, I expect at least a modicum of job security right off the bat. If I was hired from the general public, a probationary period wouldn't bother me at all.


This is fine, as long as they are checking information relevant to the job. A delivery company would probably check your driving record. A financial institution would probably check your credit history. I would be offended, and might even sue if I was turned down for an office job over having a speeding ticket 3 years ago. However, I've never heard of that happening.


I do too. However, I don't think people just make stuff up. It's more often the case that people paint a rosier-than-life picture of themselves, which is not just the case on resumes. As a naturally skeptical person, I tend make deflating adjustments to anything someone says that sounds like a display of higher value.


This is a tricky situation for employers. At the time of the interview, it's OK to be skeptical of the resume, but it's generally not OK to do a background check until the person agrees (and signs an affidavit). If you're concerned they are lying, look for visual and audible cues of lying. If we're talking about entry-level hires, the university vetted their ability to adapt to technical challenges, so for now, their degree, university reputation, and GPA are your best indicators of that. An exam on the spot can be complicated by so many factors that are irrelevant to the actual work environment, that you probably won't get a more accurate idea of their technical ability than what the university has already done for you. If you later find out they were substantially lying on their resume, rescind the offer.


Some employers have the upper hand, some don't. If you're Goldman Sachs or Google, then you can afford to be picky. Otherwise, count yourself lucky that you found a marginally competent person who hasn't embellished too much on their resume and is willing to do the job at what you're willing to pay.

You can report it to the IRS or Department of Labor. Or you can ignore it, withdraw your application in a professional manner, and move on.

It's a small world, so you could end up being blacklisted if they get wind that you reported them (as unlikely as that may be). That would also be illegal, but much harder to prove. If I were you, I would withdraw and move on--perhaps report it after you've secured a job.

Rhapsody, I studied C++ from 1998 to 2000, but I never worked in the industry. I found that human resource departments focused almost exclusively on years of corporate experience. And the fact that I had a portfolio of work with demonstrable skills did not seem to count for much. In fact, when I went to job fairs with printouts of my programs, that was probably a poor move since I was putting nontechnical people on the spot. Now, I was taking classes post-bac status rather than pursuing a second degree, and that may have made a difference. And I was looking for a job in 2000 when a lot of companies had already updated in 1999 because of worries about Y2K, and that probably also made a difference.