Practical assignments are a key part of some companies’ recruitment processes, while others consider them misleading, unnecessarily demanding or even a waste of candidates’ time. So when does a work sample test genuinely improve hiring decisions, and when can it become counterproductive?

The fundamental purpose of a practical recruitment task is straightforward: it should provide employers with a realistic picture of a candidate’s professional abilities, accuracy and approach to work.

At the same time, a well-designed assignment can also benefit candidates.

It gives them an opportunity to experience the type of work they would be expected to perform and assess whether the position actually matches their expectations.

In principle, therefore, a carefully designed work sample can provide useful information to both sides.

In practice, however, employers can still make the wrong hiring decision after using an assessment — while potentially losing strong candidates who decide that the task demands too much time or does not fairly represent the job.

The key question is therefore not simply whether to use work sample tests in recruitment, but when, how and for which positions they genuinely add value.

The position itself should determine whether a test is useful

Aliz Hornyák, Country HR Director at Alstom Hungary Kft., believes practical assignments can be particularly useful for some positions while being much less suitable for others.

At Alstom, for example, practical assessments are currently used for welders and locksmiths.

These jobs involve clearly demonstrable practical skills that can be assessed through a relatively short exercise using transparent and objective criteria.

In these situations, the connection between the task and the actual work is direct.

The candidate demonstrates a skill they would genuinely use in the role, and the employer can evaluate the result against clearly defined standards.

White-collar roles can be much harder to reproduce in a test

Hornyák sees a different challenge with many white-collar positions.

Performance in these roles may depend on:

• several interconnected tasks;
• company-specific knowledge;
• collaboration with colleagues;
• access to internal systems and information;
• decision-making over a longer period;
• individual working style and interpersonal qualities.

A short recruitment assignment may therefore capture only a small part of what determines success in the actual role.

It provides a snapshot rather than a complete picture.

A practical test should not be treated as absolute proof

Even when the task itself is relevant, the result can be influenced by circumstances that have little to do with the candidate’s actual professional ability.

According to Hornyák, these can include:

• the amount of time the candidate has available;
• access to appropriate equipment;
• the candidate’s current workload;
• stress during the assessment.

For this reason, a test result should ideally be interpreted alongside other evidence rather than becoming the sole basis for a hiring decision.

That broader evaluation can include interviews, references and, where appropriate, feedback collected during the probationary period.

Not every company uses assignments in the same way

Ágnes Lovas, Senior IT Recruitment Consultant at Vision Recruitment, sees considerable variation between organisations.

In her experience, practical assignments can be particularly important for smaller companies where the contribution of each individual employee may have a significant effect on organisational performance.

Larger multinational organisations, where responsibilities are distributed across broader teams and processes, may be less likely to rely on them.

However, company size is only one factor.

The industry and the nature of the position are often more important.

Some professions lend themselves more naturally to work samples

Assignments can be more useful in roles where the quality of a tangible output is central to performance.

Lovas highlights areas such as:

• marketing;
• Business Intelligence;
• certain visual or creative positions;
• some technical and IT roles.

They have also traditionally been common in technology recruitment, although Lovas observes that their use has been declining in some IT recruitment processes.

The first question should be: do we really need it?

From a headhunter’s perspective, one important responsibility is helping the employer determine whether an assessment is necessary at all.

The existence of a practical test should not simply be accepted because it has always been part of the process.

Recruiters and hiring managers should ask:

• What exactly are we trying to measure?
• Can the task reliably measure it?
• Will the result meaningfully influence the hiring decision?
• Could the same information be obtained more efficiently?
• How much time are we asking candidates to invest?

If there is no clear answer to these questions, another assessment method may be more appropriate.

There may be better alternatives

Lovas points out that previous work can sometimes provide a more realistic picture than a newly created assignment.

Depending on confidentiality and data-protection requirements, candidates may be able to share or adapt an earlier piece of work.

This can offer several advantages.

The candidate does not need to spend several additional hours creating something purely for a recruitment process, while the employer can review an output that reflects real professional work.

Potential alternatives to a take-home assignment may include:

• a portfolio;
• an anonymised previous project;
• a discussion of a completed case;
• a structured technical interview;
• a shorter live exercise;
• a detailed walkthrough of previous work.

The assessment should match the actual job

One of the most common mistakes is creating an assignment that measures something only loosely connected with the role.

Hornyák warns against trying to test too many capabilities simultaneously or expecting company-specific knowledge that an external candidate could not reasonably possess.

A useful assessment should focus on the essence of the position.

If the job primarily requires analysis, the task should test relevant analytical capability.

If communication is critical, the assessment should create an opportunity to evaluate communication.

The closer the exercise is to the real work, the more useful the result is likely to be.

Time investment is one of the most important limits

For many candidates, the biggest problem is not the idea of demonstrating their ability.

It is the amount of unpaid personal time required.

White-collar professionals are often participating in recruitment processes while working full time.

A substantial take-home assignment may therefore need to be completed:

• in the evening;
• at weekends;
• alongside family responsibilities;
• while preparing for other interviews.

If the assignment becomes too demanding, the employer may inadvertently measure how much free time a candidate has rather than how capable they are professionally.

Candidate reactions are mixed

Hornyák observes that some candidates genuinely appreciate practical assessments.

They see them as an opportunity to demonstrate their skills in a more tangible way than a traditional interview allows.

The task can also provide useful insight into the future position.

For these candidates, the exercise itself may make the opportunity more engaging.

Others experience it primarily as an additional burden.

This is particularly true when the assignment requires substantial preparation and must be completed outside working hours.

Vision Recruitment sees a slightly more negative tendency

Based on Vision Recruitment’s experience in white-collar recruitment, Lovas describes candidate attitudes as generally somewhat negative towards work sample assignments.

Some candidates consider them a significant inconvenience, particularly when the required time investment is high.

This creates a real recruitment risk.

Strong candidates may simply withdraw rather than complete the exercise.

Every extra recruitment stage creates potential candidate drop-off

An employer may reasonably believe that another assessment will improve hiring accuracy.

But every additional stage also creates another opportunity for candidates to leave the process.

This is especially important when strong professionals are participating in several recruitment processes at once.

They may compare:

• the time investment required;
• the number of interview rounds;
• how quickly employers respond;
• the quality of communication;
• whether assessments feel reasonable.

A lengthy test may therefore make one opportunity less attractive than another before compensation or job content even becomes decisive.

The timing of the task matters

If employers decide that an assignment is genuinely necessary, they should also consider when to introduce it.

Giving a substantial task to every initial applicant can create unnecessary work for both candidates and evaluators.

In many cases, it may be more reasonable to use the assessment later in the process, once basic suitability and mutual interest have already been established.

This means only candidates with a realistic chance of progressing need to invest the additional time.

Clear expectations are essential

Lovas emphasises that employers need to communicate concrete requirements before candidates begin the assignment.

They should understand:

• what they are expected to produce;
• how long the task should reasonably take;
• the deadline;
• which tools they may use;
• whether AI tools are permitted;
• how the result will be evaluated.

Ambiguous instructions create unnecessary uncertainty and can make the result harder to compare fairly.

The evaluation criteria should be defined in advance

Hornyák stresses the importance of using predetermined evaluation criteria.

The assessment should not become a situation in which one interviewer simply “likes” one candidate’s work more than another’s without being able to explain why.

Transparent criteria help employers evaluate consistently and help candidates feel that the process is professional and fair.

Relevant criteria might include:

• accuracy;
• quality;
• reasoning;
• structure;
• professional judgement;
• creativity where relevant;
• communication of the solution.

Feedback may be even more important than the assignment itself

Both experts highlight feedback as one of the most important parts of the process.

The greatest source of frustration is often not completing the task, but investing substantial time and then receiving a generic rejection — or no meaningful explanation at all.

If a candidate spends several hours demonstrating their abilities, the organisation should ideally acknowledge that investment with useful professional feedback.

A good rejection can still create a positive candidate experience

Lovas recommends providing concrete feedback from the professional hiring manager wherever possible.

This might address questions such as:

• What did the candidate do particularly well?
• Which areas could be improved?
• What was missing compared with the requirements of the position?
• What could help them perform better in a similar assessment in the future?

Constructive feedback can turn an unsuccessful recruitment outcome into a useful professional experience.

Poor feedback can damage the employer brand

The opposite is also true.

A candidate who dedicates significant personal time to an assessment and then receives no meaningful response may leave with a much more negative impression of the company.

This can affect:

• future applications;
• recommendations to other professionals;
• online employer reputation;
• the organisation’s wider employer brand.

The experience matters even when the candidate is not hired.

The assignment should not resemble unpaid client work

Employers should also consider whether a task asks candidates to produce something unusually extensive or commercially useful to the organisation.

A recruitment assessment should primarily test capability.

It should not feel as though candidates are being asked to complete substantial real-world work without compensation simply to remain in the selection process.

Keeping exercises hypothetical, limited in scope and clearly focused on assessment can help maintain appropriate boundaries.

Work sample tests should complement, not replace, professional judgement

No single assessment method can provide a complete picture of a candidate.

A strong recruitment process may combine several sources of information, including:

• structured interviews;
• professional experience;
• previous projects;
• references;
• short practical exercises;
• candidate motivation.

The objective is not to accumulate as many assessment stages as possible.

It is to collect enough relevant evidence to make a well-informed decision.

When can a practical assignment genuinely help?

Work sample tests in recruitment can add value when:

• the task directly reflects the real responsibilities of the position;
• the required time investment is proportionate;
• the employer knows exactly what it wants to measure;
• evaluation criteria are objective and defined in advance;
• the candidate receives clear instructions;
• the task contributes meaningfully to the final decision;
• the employer provides useful feedback afterwards.

When should employers reconsider using one?

A practical task may be counterproductive when:

• it takes several hours without a clear justification;
• it measures skills that are not central to the role;
• it requires knowledge only an existing employee could possess;
• the same information could be obtained from previous work;
• evaluation is highly subjective;
• every applicant receives the task before basic screening;
• the employer cannot provide meaningful feedback.

A good assessment respects both recruitment quality and candidate time

The debate around practical assignments is not simply about whether they are good or bad.

Their value depends on design, relevance, timing and execution.

A concise, realistic task with transparent evaluation can provide information that is difficult to obtain from an interview alone.

A lengthy or poorly designed assignment can do the opposite: discourage strong candidates, extend the process and damage the candidate experience.

The right question is not “Do we use a test?”

Instead, employers should ask:

“What information do we still need in order to make a good hiring decision, and what is the fairest and most efficient way to obtain it?”

Sometimes the answer will be a practical work sample.

In other cases, a portfolio, structured interview or detailed discussion of previous work may provide better evidence with considerably less burden on the candidate.

The strongest recruitment processes recognise that assessment quality and candidate experience are not opposing objectives.

When work sample tests in recruitment are relevant, proportionate and transparently evaluated, they can support both. When they are introduced simply as another hurdle in an already lengthy selection process, they may ultimately cost employers some of the very candidates they hoped to identify.

Source: Behaviour – HR Magazine