Work, Reconsidered: When Interviewing Becomes Exploitation

I interviewed for a recruiting role at an organization where hiring managers were doing their own recruiting. Initially, I spoke to the head of one of their technical teams and was told those same managers had reached the limits of their abilities and expertise when it came to identifying and attracting qualified talent for their teams. I was also told the company was at the point where they needed to hire a founding recruiter to come in and solve the problem.

That was super exciting to me. Then, as part of the 2nd interview, they asked me to develop the strategy I would use to solve their current recruitment/hiring problems. Apparently, the work they needed to hire someone to do was also the work they expected the candidates they interviewed to provide for free.

Being interested in a job does not mean my expertise becomes available for an employer to use before it hires me. Being unemployed also does not mean a job seeker should allow themselves to be exploited. To be clear, I do not judge the job seeker who goes along with it anyway. I get it. I've been that job seeker in the past. Today's white-collar labor market is broken in the U.S. That, coupled with the state of the U.S. economy, isn't leaving much room for hope when it comes to financial survival and employment for many job seekers who've been unemployed for a long time.

In all transparency, I thought about the employer's request for some time. Was it that they were just so inept that they had no idea their expectatiosns were not only unethical? Or were they actually trying to take advantage of me and other job-seeking recruiters to source information... to try and use on their own? Was I being paranoid? So I did what I tell job seekers to do when in this situation. I phoned a trusted recruiter in my network that I knew would be brutally honest about it. I knew they'd tell me I was overthinking... if I was. I shared the verbiage used in the emails, conversations, and previous interview. I asked them what they thought. Turns out, I wasn't paranoid. And for what it is worth, by the time you're reading this post, quite a bit of time has passed since this specific scenario took place. I've also discussed it with at least six additional recruiters, none connected to one another, and every single one of them said the same thing, "HELL NO."

So after phoning a friend, I responded to the person who sent the interview expectations. I said I was happy to discuss my framework. Meaning, the type of questions I would ask with general examples, the factors I would consider generally in a search, and the steps I've taken in the past for "hard to fill" and highly technical roles. I would not provide the blueprint or present a play-by-play how-to-solve their current hiring problems. What really got me about this on the logical side of things... if this employer truly wasn't trying to be nefarious, how would they even know how to evaluate whether my blueprint/play-by-play would work if they had no idea how to do it themselves? I remember thinking to myself as I hit send on my email, I guess now I will learn whether they're just in over their heads and do not realize what they're asking for or whether they are unethical AF and do not deserve my expertise or time.

Their response? "We definitely want [you] to dive into role-specific strategies [for our open roles] — that’s an important part of the evaluation for us. If that doesn’t work for you, that’s fine, but please let me know by tomorrow morning and I’ll cancel the [next] interview." So there it was. I didn't tell them I wouldn't interview, but I did set the firm boundary that I wouldn't work for free. I offered my fractional services as a better fit for them to help them solve their hiring problems. They responded with, "We’re not interested in proceeding that way at the moment, but [will] let you know if anything changes." I didn't cancel the next interview. They did. And all because they set a firm boundary that if I didn't provide unpaid labor for them by producing the solution to their current recruiting problems, they had no interest in engaging with me further. I remember thinking to myself, so now I know.

Employers need to be honest with themselves and their candidates. Calling something an interview doesn't mean it's an actual interview when you're just fishing for solutions without intentions of actually hiring. I cannot say for certain if the employer I spoke about above will or is going to hire a founding recruiter. The job is still posted on their website and it's been several weeks since I recieved that last email from them.

Calling unpaid labor that benefits an employer an "interview exercise" does not make it ethical.

Neither does saying, “We just want to see how you think.”

If seeing how someone thinks requires someone to develop a solution to a problem your organization is actively trying to solve, you need to examine who is getting what from that exchange. You might find yourself saying, “Rachel... maybe this company is just ignorant about hiring.” And I hear you on that. What I will say is this... I am not looking to put their name on blast. It does me, my future job searches, and my business no good. What I will say... this employer knew better.

They knew the "interview exercise" would give them real time recommendations they could discuss, adapt, or put to use immediately. They presented it like the candidates would get a chance to remain in the interview process. There is no guarantee of an offer, compensation, or even that they'd hire anyone at all. Yet somehow, the candidate is expected to treat the request as a reasonable cost of being considered???

Do employers even know how to interview ethically anymore? Or have they downsized their experienced recruitment teams so much so that they've lost the plot all together?

I have spent more than 13 years in recruiting and well over that in leadership roles. I haven't always gotten it right. I expect employers to assess candidates carefully. At the very least pay attention the feedback you're receiving from subject matter experts when it comes to how you're moving through or designing a hiring process. Ask candidates how they've built a process, why they made particular decisions, what went wrong, and what they changed. Push beyond a polished answer. Ask follow-up questions. Give candidates a hypothetical scenario with competing priorities and limited resources... not a problem that actively needs to be solved. Employers can learn a great deal about someone’s judgment without handing candidates their unfinished business and expecting candidates to finish it for them... for free!

Again, a hiring manager can explain what the team is facing and ask which questions or what a candidate would investigate first. That can be a useful conversation. However, asking a candidate to turn that discussion or exercise into a company-specific strategy, presentation, or implementation plan crosses into work the empoloyer should pay someone to produce.

The format does not excuse the request.

It can happen in a take-home assignment, a panel interview, or a conversation that keeps pushing for more detail. “What would you consider?” becomes “What specifically should we do?”. Then come the priorities, the recommendations, and the steps to implement them. I'm not going to lie to you.

And no, a candidate agreeing to participate does not settle the ethical question. Candidates know what is at stake. They may need income. They may have spent months looking for work. They may worry that setting a boundary will get them labeled difficult, uncommitted, or not interested enough. I've been in similair shoes more than a few times in the past 31+ months.

An employer’s ethical responsibility does not disappear because someone is willing to comply.

That responsibility belongs to the people designing and approving the interview process. In this situation, they didn't have that recruiter or infrastructure. So I offered a solution by hiring me fractionally to design it for them. The thing is, this type of thing isn't only happening in start-ups and companies who do not have recruiters. It's happening more than I think any of us should be comfortable with. Recruiters and hiring managers or anyone involved in hiring should question these requests before sending them to candidates. Hiring managers should be able to explain which skill they are assessing and why the exercise requires a solution to the company’s actual problem. Talent and HR leaders should examine whether the assignment produces work the organization could use, and what the candidate is being asked to contribute to create it. I've even advocated for paid assessments in the past for creatives, and it's gone over well. The key is to pay people for their work when it benefits the company, regardless of whether they're hired.

If you'd typically pay a consultant to produce the same deliverable, explain why you think a candidate should produce it for free. “We need to know they can do the job” is not enough.

Employers also need to stop treating these boundaries as evidence against a candidate. Someone who recognizes the value of their work and clearly explains what they will provide has demonstrated judgment. Making them defend that boundary while their candidacy hangs in the balance tells them something about your organization, too.

No one should have had to choose between protecting their work and proving they want the job they're "interviewing" for. I will say it again, if it comes down to this specific this or that, it's exploitation, not interviewing.

If your organization needs a strategy for a current business problem, pay someone to develop it. Asking a candidate to solve your problem for free is not made ethical by putting an interview invitation on the calendar. That is consulting. Pay them.

When Interviewing Becomes Exploitation