Hearing about Gen Z applicants who resisted taking a 90-minute financial modeling test during interviews because “it seemed like a lot of work”—and an employer who tweeted“If an analyst can’t figure it out in 90 minutes, he’s the wrong person” for the role of investment analyst – I’m on the employer’s side.
However, I see both points of view and where they are coming from. This situation creates an opportunity to delve into a deeper discussion about the tests during the interview.
The test was effective (even though it was not taken)
Given that this candidate stated that the task during the interview seemed like too much work (when you present yourself as flawlessly as possible), how would he as an employee react to a task that is part of his job, or when asked to do more and beyond in some moment?
Tests can be a valuable tool for assessing candidates. Yes, sometimes they are part of the interview process. Three hours would be excessive; 90 minutes doesn’t seem unreasonable.
The interaction of both parties shows that they are not a good fit for each other: sentiments about not taking the test have eliminated the candidate.
In fact, even without actual test results, it was effective.
Perception increased
Instead of indicating that this test requires “a lot of work,” the candidate could respond, “It would be useful to know if I am being considered as a serious candidate before I take this test.”
The “looks like a lot of work” comment gives me pause. Even if the candidate has excellent credentials, such a sharp refusal does not look good.
Employers are looking for a “can do” approach that demonstrates tenacity, ambition and problem solving, not the other way around. The comment could be seen as lazy because it implies that the test is not a priority, and therefore neither is this potential job.
Unfortunately, this reinforces Gen Z stereotypes. According to a recent Monster Survey64% of Gen Z believe they have a strong work ethic, but only 10% of non-Gen Z agree. There is a significant gap between Gen Z and Millennials, Gen X and Boomers in general regarding how the latter looks at the values, priorities, stereotypes and perceptions of Generation Z in the workplace.
Despite the disconnect, there is common ground between generations as job seekers can perform multiple roles at once. Multiple interviews may correspond to multiple tests and therefore consume more time.
Unpaid work! Free intellectual capital!
It is also understandable that candidates may resent taking tests, viewing them as unpaid labor for a job they have yet to get.
If they are applying for a sales position and a recruiter asks them to put together a written proposal for a potential client, how does the candidate know that the employer will not take their job and offer it to an actual potential client?
They may feel that their intellectual property has been violated while they are working hard to get a coveted job offer. This is a valid concern.
Especially when employers are pursuing candidates, they may wonder whether their valuable time and effort, and most importantly, their ideas, will lead to a dead end, while a potential employer will profit from their proposal.
Part of running a business
However, if tests are administered ethically, correctly, and without requiring too much time and effort from the candidate, tests can inherently be valuable assessment tools for companies.
Guardrails should be put in place to prevent employers from conducting five-hour tests or anything that takes too much time.
When employers act in good faith and do not conduct arbitrary testing that may appear disrespectful or unkind, certain expectations should be set. It is important for candidates to understand the value of tests to potentially advance their candidacy. And yes, sometimes they happen before or during an interview.
Not all tests are the same
Tests may vary in nature depending on the vacancy.
When I worked in corporate recruiting, candidates for senior data analyst positions had to take a technology test in our small conference room with only pen and paper. (They left their phones so they wouldn’t find anything.)
They were told that the on-site interview would last at least three hours, as the one-hour test would be followed by two interviews.
The hiring team wanted to see handwritten results, but most of all they focused on the candidates’ communication skills and the logic and thought processes that led them to the answers.
“Show, don’t tell”
In another example, when I was recruiting for an administrative assistant position, after conducting initial phone screenings, I sent candidates online tests in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook. (I also took a test to see what they were going through; it lasted about an hour.) I sent them a link—they had to take it within three business days. They could not advance to the first round without passing the selection test.
Candidates who resisted or failed the test were red flags. I noticed that those who complained also scored low and failed to advance to the next round.
There is a saying in writing: “Show, don’t tell.” For example, instead of writing something like someone is cold, describe how the character is shaking and their hands feel icy.
This applies here too. It’s one thing to say you have a skill, but quite another to demonstrate your ability with a test that produces objective, measurable results. The test has become a vital mechanism for advancing candidates to the next round.
Bottom line
Tests can be an effective screening tool as part of the interview process. Meanwhile, candidates may not fully understand their value and/or be reluctant to invest valuable time and intellectual capital in a job they may or may not get.
Both sides are understandable. But when we look at the bigger picture and the need to unite rather than divide, it is a reminder to trust the process and that we are all working together towards a common goal.
The applicant wants to get a job yesterday, and the employer usually wants him to start work the day before.
Ultimately, both the employer and the job seeker are looking for a suitable match for each other.
Vicky Salemi is a Monster career expert as well as an author, speaker, national columnist, and ghostwriter.
Another must-read comment:
The views expressed in Fortune.com comments are solely the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs Luck.