Gen Z candidate was refused and sparked a debate about 'free work' in interviews, igniting discussion among viewers.
On social media, a recruiter, known as @M.Stanfield on X (formerly Twitter), posted about an interview with a Gen Z candidate.
However, his post sparked a heated controversy after revealing his rejection of a Gen Z applicant who refused to spend 90 minutes on a hiring test, deeming it an 'a lot of work'.
The Stanfields expressed frustration about the Gen Z attitude in the interview.
On social media, the recruiter shared his frustrations on the platform about the interview with a Gen Z candidate.
The tweet read: 'Me: really enjoyed the call. Please see the attached financial modeling test.
Gen Z applicant: this looks like a lot of work. Without knowing where I stand in the process, I’m not comfortable spending 90 minutes in Excel. Me:…well…I can tell you where you stand now.'
His post revealed that the applicant he had interviewed was for an investment analyst position
He had emailed the unnamed Gen Z applicant, asking them to complete a 'financial modeling test,' estimated to take around an hour and a half.
After being asked to complete the task, the Gen Z applicant immediately refused to do the 90-minute task in the interview.
The recruiter immediately dismissed the Gen Z applicants after they declined the task.
He voiced his annoyance at the applicant's attitude on the website.
The post sparked a furious debate among users, with some insisting that he should never have required a candidate to perform any kind of 'free work'
On social media, the post quickly went viral and sparked a debate between the recruiter and the candidate.
The recruiter's call-out sparked a fiery debate, with many people supporting the applicant.
Comments ranged from calls for solidarity with the applicant to demands for compensation for the applicant's time, to criticisms of the company's values and hiring practices.
One person said: I figured they were using the interview process to get work for free, told them I was no longer interested, and moved on. I don’t do design tests anymore. Not at this level.
A second wrote: I refused to do a “full day test” which included 4 interviews and tasks as it seemed a bit too much for a non-managerial role. Some companies really abuse with this and may even take your ideas for free!
While a third commened: 10-minute test..more reasonable I believe. Good candidates have good options. I've been in a situation where I was asked to take a test and when I asked what the pay rate was before I took the test they told me that they will disclose the pay after I get selected..
Another added: I outright refused, making it clear I will not take a test unless I know what pay I would get if I got the job.
Someone else said: Qualifications don’t always equate to being able to put the knowledge to practical use, case of want the job do the test!
On the other hand, some users defended the recruiter's actions.
They argued that the test was a necessary measure to assess the applicant's skills and willingness to put in work.
They suggested that the situation was a 'chicken or the egg' scenario and invoked the saying, 'no pain no gain.'
Another said: Is it free work or is it a test to see if they are suitable for the position if they decline they are saying that they can not do the job
Someone wrote: All the interviews I've been to have had some sort of assessment.
One user commented: Recruiters will higher someone with the right mindset over someone with the right qualifications 95% of the time
If they really wanted the job they would do it it also gives the recruiter a look into the persons mindset. Someone said.
Someone else will definitely do it, signalling they are harder working than you if you don’t. So if you actually want the job, yes you should do it. 90 minutes is nothing. Another added.
