Upon hearing about the Gen Z job seeker who pushed back during a job interview over a 90-minute financial modeling test because “it looks like a lot of work”—and the employer who tweeted, “if an analyst can’t hammer that out in 90 min, they’re not the right person” for the investment analyst role—I side with the employer.
That said, I see both perspectives and where they’re coming from. This situation creates an opportunity to dive into a deeper discussion about tests during the interview process.
The test was effective (even though it wasn’t taken)
Considering this candidate stated that a task looked like too much work during a job interview—when you’re presenting your most polished self—how will they respond as an employee to a task that’s part of their job, or when asked to go above and beyond at some point?
Tests can be a valuable evaluative tool to assess candidates. Yes, sometimes they’re part of the interview process. Three hours would be excessive; 90 minutes does not seem unreasonable.
Both parties’ interactions show they aren’t the right fit for each other—sentiments around not taking the test ruled out the candidate.
Quintessentially, even without actual test results, it was effective.
Perceptions magnified
Instead of indicating this test is “a lot of work,” the candidate could have replied, “It would be helpful to know if I’m being considered as a serious candidate before I begin this test.”
The “it looks like a lot of work” comment gives me pause. Even if the candidate has stellar credentials, this abrupt pushback is not a good look.
Employers look for “can do” attitudes exemplifying grit, ambition, and problem-solving—not the opposite. The comment can be inferred as lazy and implies the test isn’t a priority, and therefore, neither is this potential job.
Unfortunately, it reinforces Gen Z stereotypes. According to a recent Monster poll, 64% of Gen Z think they have a strong work ethic—but only 10% of non-Gen Z generations agree about that. There’s a significant disconnect between Gen Z and millennials, Gen X, and boomers collectively regarding how the latter view Gen Z’s workplace values, priorities, stereotypes, and perceptions.
Despite the disconnect, there’s common ground across generations as job seekers may pursue several roles simultaneously. Several interviews may equate to several tests and therefore, more time invested.
Unpaid labor! Free intellectual capital!
It’s also understandable that candidates may resent taking tests, viewing them as unpaid labor for a gig they have yet to secure.
If they’re pursuing a sales position and the recruiter asks them to create a written pitch to a potential client, how does the candidate know the employer won’t take their work and pitch a real prospective client with it?
They can feel their intellectual property has been violated while putting their best foot forward to get that coveted job offer. This is a valid concern.
Especially when candidates have been ghosted by employers, they may question if their valuable time and effort—most importantly, their ideas—will lead to a dead end while the prospective employer cashes in on their proposal.
Part of doing business
That said, when administered ethically, properly, and not superfluously to demand excessive time and input from the candidate, tests at their core can be valuable assessment tools for companies.
Guardrails should be in place, so employers don’t issue five-hour tests or something egregiously time-consuming.
When employers act with integrity and aren’t arbitrarily issuing tests in ways that seem disrespectful or malevolent, expectations should be set. It’s important for candidates to understand the value of tests to potentially advance their candidacy. And yes, sometimes they will occur before or during the interview.
All tests are not created equal
Tests may vary in nature depending on the job opportunity.
When I worked in corporate recruiting, candidates for senior data analyst roles were required to complete a technology test in our small conference room with only a pen and paper available. (They relinquished their phones so they couldn’t look up anything.)
They were told the on-site interview would be at least three hours due to this hour-long test followed by two interviews.
The hiring team wanted to see their handwritten results, but, more than those, they focused on the candidates’ communication skills, and the logic and thought processes that led them to their answers.
‘Show, don’t tell’
In another example, when I recruited for the role of administrative assistant, after conducting initial phone screens, I sent candidates online tests for Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook. (I also took the test to see what they were going through; it lasted about an hour.) I sent them the link—they were required to complete it within three business days. They could not advance to the first round without completing the screening test.
Candidates who pushed back or didn’t take the test were red flags. I noticed the ones who complained also scored low and couldn’t proceed to the next round.
There’s a saying in writing: “Show, don’t tell.” For example, instead of writing something like someone is cold, describe how a character is shivering and their hands feel like ice.
It applies here, too. It’s one thing to say you’re proficient, it’s another to demonstrate abilities via a test that delivers objective, quantifiable results. The test was a vital mechanism in advancing candidates to the next round.
Bottom line
Tests can be effective screening tools as part of the interview process. Meanwhile, candidates may not fully understand their value and/or may not want to invest valuable time and intellectual capital in a job they may or may not get.
Both sides are comprehendible. But looking at the bigger picture, and the need to connect rather than divide, it’s a reminder to trust the process—and that we’re all in this together to achieve a common goal.
The job seeker wants the job yesterday, and usually the employer wants them to start the day before that.
Ultimately, both the employer and job seeker seek the right fit in each other.
Vicki Salemi is a career expert for Monster, as well as an author, speaker, nationally syndicated columnist, and ghostwriter.
More must-read commentary:
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
