Are Hiring Tests Fair?

By June Ramli

Perth, Feb 12: Pre-interview assessments have become a defining feature of modern recruitment. From short writing exercises to multi-hour case studies, candidates are increasingly being asked to prove their skills before they even speak to a hiring manager. The question dividing both applicants and employers: should this work be paid?
Career strategists say the rise of testing reflects deeper changes in the workplace.
As roles become more specialised, employers want clearer evidence that candidates can perform from day one.
One career strategist with more than 15 years’ experience working with job seekers notes that while validation is reasonable, “there’s a line between taking advantage of candidates and verifying expertise.” The advice to applicants is pragmatic: reuse what you produce.
Materials created for assessments, anonymised where necessary, can be added to a professional portfolio or repurposed for future applications.
From the employer side, opinions vary by scope and intent. Chris Sorensen, CEO of PhoneBurner and ARMOR®, does not believe most early-stage tests should be compensated.
“Personally, I do not believe pre interview test should be paid unless they require meaningful travel, extended time commitments, or in person participation.
If its just an hour long online assignment?
No. For some roles that comes with the career path. Early-stage assessments are meant to screen for baseline fit, not function as billable work.”
Sorensen argues that short tasks function much like interviews or portfolio reviews, adding that candidates are not obliged to proceed. However, he acknowledges limits.

“I do think there are certain situations where a company crosses a line and demands significant time. At that point the candidate is absorbing real cost like lost work hours, travel, opportunity cost and perhaps compensation becomes more reasonable.”
Others draw firmer boundaries. Lacey Kaelani, CEO & Co-Founder of Metaintro, believes payment becomes appropriate once exercises move beyond brief evaluations.
“If a candidate does pre-interview work that takes more than 2–3 hours or creates something the company may use for revenue, the candidate should be compensated for their work.”
Kaelani adds that genuine assessments should centre on hypothetical problems or past business scenarios, rather than generating fresh work product a company could potentially deploy.
George Atuahene, Founder & CEO of Ataraxis, echoes the distinction between short screenings and heavier tasks.
“Pre-interview testing can be really valuable, but impartiality is essential. Short assessments to check basic knowledge or fitness are usually free. They’re a normal part of the application process.”
But when assignments become extensive, he warns, fairness — and employer reputation — come into play.
“Larger test tasks should be fairly compensated because they often require a considerable amount of time and effort… And usually, big unpaid assessments are indicative of a company with a toxic culture and high turnover.”
Magical Butter CEO Mark Coffie frames the issue around time and business value.

“Short, skills based tests that take 30–45 minutes and closely resemble the actual work can be a fair means of screening.”
However, he cautions against unpaid projects that resemble real deliverables.
“These are problematic tasks if it involve multi-hour projects, fully developed strategies, creative work product that can be used directly by the business. In these cases, money is a way to respect the candidate’s time…”
Coffie’s rule of thumb is simple: if the task is primarily about understanding how someone thinks, keep it short and unpaid. “If it produces any usable work or if it takes more than an hour, paying the candidates is both the more ethical and strategic move.”
Another hiring professional, Marshall, draws a bright-line example.
“Candidates should generally not be paid for completing tests, assessments, or practical exercises. However, if a candidate is required to produce a work product that the company can use to its benefit or profit, the candidate should be paid.”
He contrasts psychometric tools such as a DiSC assessment, which typically remain unpaid, with technical projects like coding tasks that create tangible business value.

Beyond Testing: Are References Still Relevant?

The debate over fairness in hiring does not end with assessments. References — long considered essential — are also facing scrutiny.
Susan Mahaffee of People Rise LLC argues that the referencing process has changed dramatically.
“Gone are the days when former employers could legally provide any relevant information, and no candidate provides a reference that could shine a negative light on them…”
Her recommendation to employers is to rely more on letters of recommendation and structured evaluation methods, while cautioning against informal background probing that may introduce bias or breach candidate privacy.
George Atuahene views references as useful, but incomplete.
“References are useful, but they are not sufficient for getting the full context. The candidates typically pick people they know well… So, their feedback could be biased.”
He advocates combining references with skills assessments and structured interviews to build a more balanced picture.
Mark Coffie is more sceptical about their practical value.
“Most applications provide for people who are going to say nice things about the applicant, so it has this feel of politeness and predictability.”
Instead, he suggests work simulations and deeper interview conversations, reserving references for senior or highly sensitive roles.

A Candidate’s Perspective

For candidates, these shifts can be frustrating. It is not uncommon for an application process to begin with a test, with no guarantee of progression. When exercises are lengthy or ambiguous in purpose, concerns about unpaid labour and data use often follow.
Experts say transparency is key. Clear expectations about time commitment, evaluation criteria and whether submitted work will be retained can reduce distrust on both sides. For employers, respecting candidate effort may strengthen brand perception. For applicants, selectively engaging with processes that align with their boundaries remains a strategic choice.
As recruitment evolves, one principle appears to be gaining consensus: brief assessments designed purely to evaluate thinking and fit may remain unpaid. But once tasks demand significant time or generate usable business outputs, compensation is increasingly seen not just as ethical — but as smart hiring practice.