How Can Employers Test a Candidate’s Skills Without Asking for Free Work?

A company needs a content writer. Three candidates make it through the interviews, and the hiring manager wants to see how they write. Each receives a brief to research a topic, write an article, suggest keywords, and prepare social media posts.

The task could take several hours. The company is hiring one person, but all three candidates are being asked to do substantial work before they know whether they will get the job.

This is where a useful hiring test can turn into a bad candidate experience.

Employers need a way to check whether applicants can do the job, not just talk about it. But a test should give them evidence of a candidate’s skills without asking applicants to complete work the company could use for free.

A resume tells an employer where someone has worked and what they claim to know. An interview gives the hiring team a chance to ask questions. Neither always shows how a person will handle the work itself.

A short, relevant exercise can help fill that gap.

For a customer support role, an employer might ask a candidate to respond to a fictional complaint. A data analyst could be given a small dataset and asked to identify a trend. A project manager might be asked to explain how they would handle a delayed delivery.

These are examples of work-sample assessments: exercises based on tasks that are part of the job.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management identifies work samples and simulations as methods employers can use to assess candidates. The UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) also recommends skill-based assessments that resemble real work as closely as possible.

The point is not to make the test difficult. It is to find out whether the candidate can perform a task that matters.

There is no single time limit that works for every role. A short editing exercise is different from a technical assessment for a senior engineering position.

But employers should be able to explain why a task takes as long as it does.

If a hiring manager needs only to check whether a writer can edit a paragraph, asking for a full article is probably unnecessary. If the role involves analyzing complex data, a more substantial exercise may be justified.

Before sending a test, ask:

Candidates should know the expected time commitment before they agree to complete the task. If the assignment is lengthy, explain why it is necessary and consider paying candidates for their time.

Imagine a marketing team preparing a campaign. Instead of assigning the work to an employee or freelancer, the company asks several job applicants to create campaign ideas as part of the hiring process.

The employer gets multiple proposals. Most candidates get nothing in return.

That is a poor trade-off for people who have already spent time applying and interviewing.

A better option is to use a fictional brief, an old project that is no longer needed, or a sample designed specifically for recruitment. A company hiring a copywriter could ask for a short passage on a neutral subject. An employer looking for a designer could provide a made-up brand and ask for a small concept rather than a complete campaign.

For software developers, a limited coding exercise can show how a candidate approaches a problem without asking them to build a feature for a live product.

The distinction matters: the employer is assessing the candidate, not commissioning unpaid work.

If the company needs a substantial deliverable that it intends to use, it should consider a paid assignment with clear terms. A paid trial can also be a better option when the employer needs to see how someone performs over a longer period.

Hiring across borders brings another consideration: rules around trial work are not the same everywhere.

In the United Kingdom, CIPD’s guidance on selection methods emphasizes that assessments should be relevant to the role and applied fairly. Its guidance also discusses skill-based tasks such as writing a client email, analyzing data, or handling a customer interaction.

Australia takes a particularly clear approach to unpaid work trials. The Fair Work Ombudsman says an unpaid trial may be lawful when it is necessary to demonstrate the skills required for a vacant job and lasts no longer than reasonably needed. If the trial goes beyond that demonstration and becomes productive work, payment may be required.

For employers hiring internationally, the lesson is not to assume that one company policy fits every location. A brief exercise that is appropriate in one situation may raise legal questions in another, depending on the work involved and the employment relationship.

Before arranging a trial, employers should check the rules that apply where the candidate will perform the work.

Skills assessments become less useful when different reviewers judge the same work by different standards.

One manager may prefer a detailed answer. Another may value brevity. A third may focus on presentation while overlooking errors.

Set the criteria before candidates begin.

For a content writer, those criteria might include accuracy, structure, clarity, and following the brief. For a customer support role, they could include tone, problem-solving, and whether the response addresses the customer’s concern.

Give reviewers the same criteria and use them for every candidate completing the assessment. This does not remove every element of judgment, but it makes the decision easier to explain and compare.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission advises employers to ensure that employment tests and selection procedures are appropriate for their purpose and do not unlawfully discriminate. A test should measure something relevant to the job, not simply reward candidates who share a manager’s personal preferences.

Usually, there is no need to ask every applicant to complete a skills assessment.

For a remote role that attracts hundreds of applications, the employer can first review basic qualifications and shortlist candidates who meet the requirements. The work sample can come later, once the pool is smaller.

This saves time for the hiring team and reduces the burden on applicants.

At the assessment stage, candidates should receive the same instructions, comparable time limits, and the same evaluation criteria. Employers should also consider reasonable accommodations where needed.

If the hiring manager decides halfway through the process to add another test, they should ask whether it will provide information that is genuinely needed. More stages do not automatically produce a better hiring decision.

For writing, marketing, research, and technical roles, employers may need to decide whether candidates can use AI tools during an assessment. AI is also changing how employers conduct job interviews, which raises similar questions about what hiring teams should evaluate and how they should do it.

The answer depends on the job.

If employees are expected to use AI at work, banning it from the test may not reflect the actual responsibilities. If the employer wants to assess unaided writing or coding skills, that expectation should be made clear.

State the rules before the assessment begins. Explain which tools are allowed and whether candidates should disclose how they used them.

For example, a candidate might be asked to draft a short piece of content, check the facts, and briefly explain which parts they revised after using an AI tool. That gives the employer a chance to assess judgment and editing skills, rather than looking only at the finished text.

The important thing is consistency. Candidates should not discover after submitting their work that the employer had an unstated rule about AI.

A candidate who completes a test and hears nothing for weeks is unlikely to leave with a good impression of the company.

Employers do not need to write a detailed review for every applicant. But they can tell candidates when they expect to make a decision and follow up when that date changes.

For people who reach the final stage and complete a substantial assignment, brief feedback can also be worthwhile. A specific explanation is more useful than a generic rejection: perhaps the candidate’s work was clear but did not demonstrate a technical skill required for the role.

This is also part of the employer’s reputation. Applicants who are not hired may apply for another opening later, recommend the company to someone else, or share their experience with their professional network.

A useful skills test starts with one question: what does the employer need to know before making an offer?

Choose an exercise that reflects the job. Keep it proportionate to the skill being assessed. Tell candidates how much time to allow, explain the rules, and decide how the work will be evaluated before submissions arrive.

Do not use a hiring assignment as a substitute for paid work. If a company needs a real deliverable, it should consider an appropriate paid arrangement and check the relevant local rules.

The aim is to make a sound hiring decision, not to see how much unpaid effort a candidate is willing to put in.