Assessment tasks in hiring: fair test or free labour?

Assessment tasks such as take-home challenges, case studies, and mini-projects are now a standard in hiring. 

They promise a clearer view of candidates’ real skills, but many candidates feel these tasks are often just free work.

This post digs deeper into the grey zone. How do you tell a fair test from unpaid labour? 

We’ll look at the line where an assessment task becomes free labour, and how to design assessments that balance insight with respect. 

Where to draw the line

It helps to think of assessments on a spectrum. On one end are lightweight tests designed solely to assess a skill, and on the other are full-blown assignments that deliver business value. 

The problem arises when one becomes the other. 

Indicators you’ve crossed the line

Here are signals a test is slipping into free labour:

• The work mirrors real client deliverables (strategy plans, marketing assets, engineering features) that you might use directly. 
• The task demands many hours (half day, full day, more). 
• The brief is vague, scope creeps, or expectations shift.
• There’s no compensation, credit, or acknowledgment.
• You ask candidates to sign over IP or grant rights (so you can use their ideas)
• You don’t provide feedback or even acknowledge receipt
• Candidates report frustration. 

A senior engineer summed it up bluntly: many take-homes “drive home the idea that this employer doesn’t care if you are a carbon-based life form, as long as code comes out”. .

In a ThriveMap survey, many candidates complained that assessments took too long or were irrelevant to the job.

By contrast, a fair test sits clearly on the low-intensity side. It should be short, focused, hypothetical or anonymised, and respectful of time.

Working interview vs skills test

A useful distinction comes from labour law and hiring ethics:

• Working interview. A candidate is asked to do real work that benefits the company. Legally, many jurisdictions require paying for this time (at least minimum wage) because you’re extracting value. 
• Skills test / assessment. A task created solely to evaluate ability, not to contribute to company outputs. These can go unpaid if they are clearly detached from business value. 

If your assessment starts to look like client work, it flips into the working interview zone, and should be compensated or avoided.

How to design fair, insight-rich assessments

Here’s a more detailed blueprint for designing assessments that respect candidates and still yield meaningful evaluation.

1. Start with behavioral outcomes, not outputs

Decide exactly what behaviour or thinking process you want to observe (e.g. how someone structures a brief, prioritises features, solves ambiguity). 

Don’t aim to test everything. That clarity helps you define a compact, fair task.

2. Keep it time-boxed and limited

Set a firm upper limit, usually 1–2 hours, rarely more. Beyond that, the burden is too great. 

According to GitHub’s Developer Assessment Experience, design challenges are typically done in three to four hours and candidates prefer clearly time-boxed tasks. 

If you absolutely need deeper tasks (for senior roles), break them into stages, pay candidates for the heavier parts, or offer to waive for those who can’t commit the time. 

3. Use dummy or anonymised data. 

Never ask candidates to produce work that could slide directly into your live pipeline.

Instead:

• Frame hypothetical scenarios.
• Simplify or anonymise datasets.
• Use sample or dummy clients.
• Provide a sandbox environment.

This prevents confusion over whether you’re outsourcing tasks and removes pressure.

4. Write a clear brief 

A brief should explicitly state:

• Task context and constraints.
• What you want delivered (format, length, style).
• What you won’t assess.
• How success will be judged.
• Expected time investment.

Providing a clear outline upfront is powerful as it reduces ambiguity and helps candidates self-select out if they don’t want to do it. It also enables fairer scoring across submissions.

5. Offer alternatives or opt-outs

Not every candidate has the time or willingness to take on a take-home test. 

Options:

• A live discussion or case exercise.
• A shorter version of the test.
• Skipping the test if they already have. demonstrable work.

This flexibility respects diverse circumstances and prevents bias in favour of people with more spare time.

6. Compensate longer or high-stakes tasks

If your task requires more than two hours or is for a high-level role:

• Offer a flat fee. 
• Guarantee an interview for completing it.
• Credit for submitted work

Even modest compensation signals respect and may reduce backlash.

7. Provide feedback and closure

Silence after an assessment is damaging. Data suggests:

• 78% of candidates report never being asked for feedback after recruiting processes.
• 46% feel their time was disrespected during interviews. 

At minimum, tell candidates whether they passed or not. 

Even better, provide brief comments on strengths and improvement areas. That closes the candidate experience loop and protects reputation.

8. Blind or anonymous scoring

Where possible remove names, gender, and demographic cues, and use multiple reviewers and average to reduce individual bias

This helps avoid bias creeping in around writing style, polish, or presentation.

9. Pilot and iterate

Test your assessments internally or with a sample group. 

Collect feedback and refine:

• Did candidates understand the brief?
• Did submissions vary wildly? (If so, your task might be ambiguous)
• How long did people actually take?

Better to iterate now than damage employer brand later.

Why it matters 

Candidates talk. A bad assessment experience can ripple through employer branding and recruiting metrics. 

72% of job seekers who had a negative hiring experience share it publicly, and 55% abandon applications after seeing negative reviews. 

How you assess people is a message about your company’s values. If applicants feel exploited, you repel not just that individual, you undermine your reputation in a market.

Vestd helps founders align people around long-term value with employee share schemes that reinforce ownership. Learn more.