A friend recently reminded me of her experience applying to a well-respected foundation in NYC.

After completing several interview rounds, she was excited for what seemed to be a final test:

Complete 3 assignments with a 72-hour turnaround and share them with members of the senior leadership team.

She worked extremely hard on these tasks, including creating an 11-page strategy recommendation paper complete with proposed partners (and how to make inroads with them), citations, and perfect formatting.

Looking at these projects which the candidate shared with me, the value she delivered was UNREAL. These were the kind of work deliverables you might expect a consultant to provide over the course of a month for $10k or more.  

The outcome? 

They fully ghosted her after she submitted the tasks. Not even an acknowledgment of receipt. Not even a thank you. And definitely no follow-up to inform her that the role had been given to someone else. 

(Without naming them directly, I'll say that this feels like robbing from the job seekers aka the poor for the benefit of a large organization aka the rich, and let you deduce from there.)

In the last 5 years or so, it seems like the project-based tasks in the hiring process have massively increased.

But is it normal? And how much time should you be expected to work on these projects?

I luckily had a better experience with task-based interview assignments than my friend did.

The first (and only) time I was asked to do a project in the interview process, there was only one "project" assignment.

It was fairly broad: what my first steps would look like in the job? 

I was given a full week to complete it. The task took me about 2 hours to complete. 

I later learned that the role was already going to be offered to me, but this was a final way to check I was ready for it and to set me up for success when I started the job. 

Even so, that project could have been considered exploitative if not for the $10k higher salary my manager advocated for on my behalf (without me asking for it).

But what's the difference between an ethical assignment in the interview process and labor exploitation?

I'm not opposed to a relevant project-based task as part of the application process, BUT organizations should follow these practices for ethical and non-exploitative project-based tasks:

✅ Candidates asked to do project-based tasks are in the FINAL round and used when an organization needs to differentiate between 2-3 candidates maximum. This context should also be shared transparently with those candidates!

✅ Candidates are PAID for their labor on these tasks. Many organizations are starting to adopt this practice and I love it.

✅ Candidates required to complete tasks should be limited, but the time allotted to complete them should be spacious (like my 2-hour task that I was given a week to complete), because most candidates are also working full-time jobs! Employers should also make these expectations of how much time you should spend on a task explicit. 

✅ Commit to candidates that if they are not selected, their work will in NO WAY contribute to your organization's work or advancement. Put this in writing. 

✅ Employers have allocated time and energy to thoughtfully review all project submissions and follow up in a timely manner (let's say no more than the time allocated to complete the projects!) to respond to candidates.

• Ideally, this also includes specific feedback for those NOT selected to the role as to what they could do to strengthen their candidacy (do not say "someone else was better aligned" because this doesn't give the candidate ANY information),
• AND a commitment to reach out to them if other relevant roles become available. In other words, share appreciation and show that you value their efforts and energy.

✅ Organizations are clear on WHY they are asking candidates to do these tasks.

• If you want to know a candidate's writing style, ask for an existing writing sample rather than making something new.
• If you want to understand their thinking process for a challenging scenario, it might be MORE equitable to give them time to reflect on it as a project-based task rather than ask on the spot in an interview.
• If it's a final check to ensure the candidate will be successful in the role and they're in a good position when they start the role, you can ask for a small project that they will be able to use. (Still on this one, it should be PAID). 

BUT!! Continue at your own peril if an employer...

🚩 An employer asks for MULTIPLE project-based task rounds (1 should be plenty!).

🚩 Asks you to list your personal contacts/contact information.

🚩 Isn't transparent about the number of rounds, interview process, or what to expect.

🚩 Can't tell you WHY they want candidates to do project-based tasks.

🚩 Gives a task that an employee would normally be paid for.

Here's the thing: There is inherently a MASSIVE power imbalance between job seekers and employers. 

So yeah, employers can get away with asking candidates to do a sh*tload of work for them for free. 

But it's exploitative as hell and it should be illegal. At minimum, we need transparency into which employers use these practices. Shame can be an effective tool for change. 😉

I'll hop off my soapbox now.  

So, what if you're already in an interview process for a role you really want and they start asking for multiple project rounds? 

On top of that, what if you're in a really bad situation with your current job, and you're desperate to get out?

You've already put a bunch of energy into this potential role and organization and to withdraw your candidacy now might feel like you've wasted your time. 

How much can they ask of us? Can we push back? But what if we really want the job?

I'm sorry you're in this situation, my friend. I know job searching is a whole other full-time job along with the one you're trying to escape. 

Here are some considerations and choices:

➡️ Get out of there.

Has this process been clarifying that this is absolutely NOT the kind of organization you want to work for? Perhaps you might simply remove your candidacy.

If you do, know that it may negatively impact your chances of working at this organization in the future.

You might also give feedback to the hiring manager or recruiter to pass along that the process was too great a burden for candidates.  

If you know you'll never be applying to this organization again, you might also anonymously share your experience to warn other candidates on sites like Glassdoor (or send it to me to share out anonymously!). 

➡️ Stick it out, quietly.

You may not have the privilege or job security to push back on these tasks. For example, you might have financial requirements that don't allow you to take the risk of calling out abusive employer behavior.

I've also worked with clients who are limited to applying to organizations that sponsor visas in order to stay where they live. 

If you're in this position, you may choose to keep going with the interview process. And assuming you get the role, once the first few paychecks land in your bank account, you could reach out to HR or more senior colleagues with feedback on your experience in the process. 

Note that there's a real risk that the interview process aligns with the culture of this organization so prepare yourself for a potentially bumpy ride.  

➡️ Push back

There's a way to do this respectfully but assertively. A good way to start is to ask in the first round what the interview process looks like, how much time is required, and how many rounds will take place. You then have the choice to decline moving forward or continue ahead, but with more information about what to expect.

You might request an estimate of how long a task is expected to take and if they say longer than 2 hours or don't have a time estimate, you can share that your full-time job and responsibilities limit your ability to spend the time required for the task, but offer equivalent work samples that demonstrate your ability to do the job. 

You could also request or propose an alternative task requiring less time to demonstrate the skills or competencies they're looking for. 

If they refuse, see the red flags above.

They're providing the clarification you need - you've escaped working for an exploitative organization...

where you just might be back in the same situation 1 year from now: burned out and desperate for the next role. 

What are your experiences with project-based interview tasks? What do you think about them?