I recently interviewed for a senior producer position for a very popular software development focused tech podcast (to be further identified as “The Tech Podcast,” which is not its real name). This podcast was recently acquired by a well known tech company (to be further identified as “The Tech Company,” also not its name).
The position seemed like a perfect fit given my past career experience. Many people in the software developer community urged me to apply.
I applied, and after a second round of interviews, I decided not to move forward following my conscience and my gut. The main reason being their unbending decision to include an unpaid 2-hour job assessment test as a part of their interview process, which I find to be unethical and exploitative.
(I also posted this on my portfolio site here).
For those who don’t know me, I have been in the radio/podcast space for almost a decade, getting my start by producing segments for Marketplace Tech, a show syndicated by NPR.
My past experience that would be most similar to producing for The Tech Podcast, is my experience producing for the popular early career developer podcast, CodeNewbie, as well as spearheading Forem/DEV’s podcast unit after they acquired CodeNewbie.
The podcasts we launched to compliment CodeNewbie were the developer roundtable show DevDiscuss, as well as the tech news show DevNews. Quarterly, I juggled the researching, scriptwriting, guest booking, recording, audio editing, and mixing of these three podcasts. I was the sole producer (we did hire one additional producer, but he was only at the company for a couple of months before there were mass layoffs).
This year, on top of editing and mixing the international affairs podcast Global Dispatches, I worked full-time for 9 months leading the production of a highly produced Wondery/AT WILL MEDIA pop culture podcast called The Big Flop.
Prior to that, I launched Gizmodo Media’s podcast unit, juggling the producing and editing of three weekly shows: The Upgrade, DirtCast, and Big Time Dicks. And on top of all of this, I’ve edited and sound designed audio dramas such as the Webby award-winning comedy musical podcast, Propaganda, and the fantasy comedy podcast, Roommate From Hell.
All of which is to say, I have a lot of experience in audio production.
Back to my experience interviewing with The Tech Podcast.
I first had a 30 minute call with a recruiter where she told me a bit about the role, and that due to my extensive background and “impressive resume” I was already put through to the next round.
This next round consisted of a 70-minute Zoom chat with the hiring managers. One being the co-host of The Tech Podcast (Interviewer A), and the other being the general manager of The Tech Company (Interviewer B).
After a very engaging and productive chat where Interviewer A and Interviewer B went through the various aspects of the role, and I went through my career background, all seemed very much aligned. Interviewer B then asked one final question, “Do you have any questions for us?”
I had some big picture questions that had to do with where The Tech Company wanted to take this newly acquired show and the potential for building more podcasts on top of that, but my main question was about a 2-hour assessment test, which the recruiter had told me about. I asked her if the assessment test was paid, to which she replied nobody had ever asked that before, but that it was not paid. However, she said that it was alright not being paid because it was, “meant to be a fun assignment.”
I’ve done a fair share of hiring in the past for podcast producer roles, and I by no means am against assessment tests. What I am against is not paying people for their time.
I told Interviewer A and Interviewer B that I didn’t believe in unpaid assessment tests, and that I was happy to provide materials of work that I’ve done in the past that are similar to what I would be doing in the assessment test if payment wasn’t an option.
Interviews are a two-way street. The interviewers are not only interviewing the potential employee, the potential employee should also be interviewing the interviewers to assess whether they want to work at the company.
When I give my perspective on something like unpaid job assessment tests, it’s not only to express my concern about an exploitative practice, it is also a way for me to gauge a company’s culture and ethics. It shows me how willing a company is to hear out their employees (even potential employees), and whether they are open to collaboration and compromise, as opposed to just adhering to some strict hierarchical top-down structure.
During my interview with the hiring managers, I gave a few examples of ways in which I believe giving unpaid assessment tests is exploitative.
I am a freelancer, and as such I have set a value on my time for my work. However, even if I wasn’t a freelancer, everyone’s time is valuable, and people should be compensated for their time if they are expected to work.
The argument companies typically make for why it’s okay for assessment tests to be unpaid is that what is produced won’t be put out into the world. This argument doesn’t make sense because there are instances I’ve worked on episodes or radio segments that never saw the light of day (usually because the guest either turned out to be problematic or the topic was no longer newsy and we had to pivot), but I was still paid for my time.
Also, The Tech Podcast currently outsources the editing and mixing of their episodes to an external production house. This production house was never given some unpaid assessment test prior to the tech podcast working with them. The production house was given trust that they can accomplish the job due to the production house’s prior work. An individual, especially a freelancer, can essentially be seen as a very small business, and as such should be treated the same way. They should be hired based on their prior work, trusting that they can accomplish the job, or paid for their time to prove it.
Unpaid assessment tests also remind me of when I was a barista in my early 20’s. Some cafes would expect you to work 1 - 3 days unpaid to see if you are “the right fit.” In most cases, people searching for these types of jobs are in tough financial positions; they don’t have the privilege of saying no. To be fair, a lot of the cafes that do this are small businesses with tight finances. It’s still gross and exploitative, but you can see how a small business owner might reach that decision to squeeze some free work out of somebody.
But, The Tech Company which acquired The Tech Podcast isn’t a small struggling business like a little NYC bar or cafe. They are a well-known tech company with the tech money that comes with that, which makes their decision even more appalling.
And honestly, for me, it’s not necessarily about the amount of money a company is willing to pay a prospective employee to do an assessment test, it’s the principle of whether they are willing to pay anything. It is about whether a company respects someone’s time, and if they ask someone to do work for them, even if it never ends up in something like a podcast feed, that the work is compensated to any degree.
Allowing someone the mere prospect of working for your company is not enough compensation for their work.
You might ask at this point, “Well, does that mean prospective employees should be paid for the interviews they go on, since they are also spending valuable time to do that?” My answer to this is that at least in an interview there is an inherent reciprocity and mutuality there. Both interviewer and interviewee and spending their time, unlike when an unpaid job assessment test is thrown at someone and they are expected to be the only ones working, and working for free no less.
I also posed the question of how long into a software developer’s career might it seem offensive for a company to give that person an unpaid coding assessment test. Would any company right now have the audacity to ask a Scott Hanselman or maybe even one of the popular developer co-hosts of The Tech Podcast to do an unpaid coding assessment test? Probably not, because their resume speaks for itself.
Interviewer B’s response to my criticism of unpaid assessment tests was that he, “appreciated my perspective,” but that he was, “not interested in having a philosophical debate,” and that, “this is how we decided to do it, and you can choose not to continue with the interview process.”
Thus, I chose not to continue with the interview process.
Now, I am at a place in my career where I can say no, unlike when I was a young barista in my early 20’s. A lot of jobs I find now are through companies who reach out to me to work with them, instead of the other way around, and that is truly a privilege.
I hope that what I wrote here sparks a debate about these unethical hiring practices so that those who aren’t in a privileged position -- those who can’t say no -- won’t be exploited.
Disclaimer: I have kept the name of the tech podcast, the tech company that acquired them, and the names of the interviewers anonymous because I signed an NDA prior to the second interview. I imagine companies do this not only to protect “intellectual property,” but also in part so they won’t have to be held accountable for engaging in unseemly practices such as unpaid job assessment tests.
Top comments (5)
Certainly! I decided not to pursue further interviews with the log review mentioned tech podcast due to a misalignment in values and focus. Exploring opportunities that better resonate with my goals. #CareerChoices #PrioritizingValues
I would love to hear about other people's thoughts and experiences about this, both those who find unpaid job assessment tests to be unethical and exploitative, and from those who think it's a fine practice! Who knows, maybe I'm all wrong, but if there really is no counter argument to this, then what I view as an awful practice should stop immediately.
Wait, what!? So they pay only to do a boring job?
It's an interesting question!
Most take-home assessments I've seen aren't real work that would be actually used anywhere, so I think the debate about working for free is kind of a moot point in most cases. It may be different for other fields, but whenever I've done a software engineering take-home assessment, it's always an example demo project to test your skills, not actual work on their app or anything the company would benefit from.
So in my case, I'm not so concerned about a company taking advantage of me and using my time to build their software, because that's not what's happening.
I think the more applicable concern is in terms of time, which you've pointed out. Take home assessments assume that you have X amount of hours of your free time to complete the assignment. And if you're working long hours or are a parent of young kids or have other commitments, that can be difficult to accommodate.
But, counterpoint... Let's say you're interviewing at two companies.
Company A has a four-hour interview process and a two-hour take-home assessment, for a total of six hours.
Company B has a six-hour interview process but no take-home assessment, for a total of six hours.
Is Company A or Company B more ethical in their hiring practices? I don't think an argument could be made either way. In both scenarios you are spending the same amount of time interviewing when you could be spending that time doing something else, so the opportunity cost is the same.
So it seems that the takeaways should be: As interviewers, respect your candidates' time. Keep the interview loop as short as possible, and if you require take-home assessments, keep them to 1-2 hours and use that in place of some other in-person interview you might do as part of your interview process.
Does that seem reasonable?
Next topic for discussion, NDAs never project the little guy. What NDA practices should be forbidden