Diary of a People Professional, Part 2
I recently engaged with a post on Facebook about the “equitable practice” of paying job candidates for the time they spend interviewing and doing tasks/work exercises. And all I could do was sigh. Just another case of equity in form, but not in practice. Let’s discuss…
If you spend any time in HR spaces, nonprofit circles, or equity-focused conversations, you’ve probably seen this come up more and more over the past few years. The argument generally is that candidates incur real costs during the interview process (e.g. time off of work (which may or may not be paid), childcare, transportation, preparation, etc.) and that paying them for interviews is a more equitable way to create better access to the hiring process.
The Actual Costs...
On its face, I understand the argument: candidates do incur costs. But before we jump into why at a foundational/philosophical level this bothers me, let’s assume for a second that this is the right choice… how, exactly, are we paying candidates? Are we issuing gift cards? Are we running them through accounts payable? Are we classifying them as independent contractors and asking them to submit a W-9? Each of those options introduces new, real hurdles.
If we are asking candidates to provide a Social Security number to receive $200 for an interview, we’ve now introduced privacy and trust concerns into a process where there is already a significant power imbalance.
If we’re routing them through vendor systems (e.g. Bill.com, Ramp, etc.), we are asking them to navigate administrative processes that many people struggle with, let alone candidates who have no relationship with the organization.
If we’re using gift cards we may not even be creating a way to offset the actual costs we’re so concerned about.
Secondly, what are we doing to help the candidates understand what’s actually being paid? A candidate now has to figure out “Is this income?” “Do I need to report this?” “Why are they asking for my SSN and is that normal at this stage?” This not only creates a new barrier for perhaps the most marginalized candidates, but it also adds a cognitive load to what may already be a heavy moment due to interview prep, performance pressure, and evaluation anxiety.
Finally, for some candidates, giving a SSN, financial information, and/or other personal data to an organization they may never hear from again is not neutral. This is asking a level of trust that is disproportionate to the relationship where the organization holds all of the power, the candidate has no guarantee of outcome or continued contact, and yet is being asked to assume risk in order to receive what is, in most cases, a relatively small amount of money.
The Experience…
There is an argument to be made that paying candidates for interviewing can increase the candidate experience. But if we are being honest, most organizations are not only not great at this, but so abysmal that simple gestures create outsized gratitude.
For example, as a recruiter, at the end of every hiring process, I send a templated message from our HRIS/ATS to the entire candidate pool thanking them for applying, letting them know the role has been filled, and encouraging them to apply again in the future. It takes me – at best – maybe five to ten minutes to do. What the candidates receive is a very obviously system-generated message. Yet, every time, I am surprised by the number of genuine “thank you for letting me know” and lamentations about how rare it is to receive any notification whatsoever. This message I send, it isn’t personalized or even terribly thoughtful, but the baseline is so low that basic communication feels like care.
There is a belief that introducing one equity practice naturally leads to others… that equitable intention compounds into more equity. In my experience, not only is that not reliably true, what I see far more often is that a visible, easy-to-implement practice becomes a stand-in for deeper work that is necessary to actually produce an equitable hiring process. It signals that the organization is “doing equity,” and creates a feeling of “we’re doing it!” which, at best, reduces the urgency to examine the rest of the system; at worst, obscures the inequity embedded in the process.
With the very real exception of potentially subsidizing childcare costs and/or travel (because let’s be honest, it will never be enough to cover those expenses), paying candidates may not actually address the candidate experience at all because it focuses on offsetting the experience of the process rather than interrogating the structure of the process. The following cannot be overstated: equity is not about making people feel better while they move through a process. Equity is about how that process is designed, who holds power in it, and how they are wielding or yielding that power. And in hiring, if we're not reducing rounds, bias, labor, and/or increasing agency, how is the addition of an alleged “equitable practice” improving the process?
Let’s say a candidate is invited to participate in an in-person fourth/final round interview that includes a panel interview, a presentation, and several hours of engagement with staff. The organization offers, in addition to covering the cost of travel, a stipend as a gesture of respect for the candidate’s time. On its face, this may seem perfectly reasonable. It may even seem generous. But I find myself asking different questions: what level is this role (and what would it need to be for this to seem reasonable)? How many rounds are there (are four really necessary?)? What exactly is being asked of the candidate? Is that ask reasonable before we introduce money into the equation? What does covering the cost of travel and providing a stipend now make acceptable that we might otherwise question? Because this is the very real issue that we want to prevent against: the subtle but important shift that happens that once an employer is paying for something, whatever follows is reasonable. And we’ve moved from interrogating the process to justifying it and that is a power shift that moves more power to the end of the transaction that already has outsized power.
The Work Exercise
There is one place where I do advocate paying candidates and it is when the hiring process asks them to complete a task or work exercise. I advocate for this because regardless of how you present it, it’s hard for candidates to believe that we are not asking them to produce something of value to the organization, but payment for this work takes away the question (maybe later I’ll write something about the horrific tasks I’ve seen candidates (and myself as a candidate) be subject to that absolutely feel like free work or work done for an organization that they do not work for). Work exercises, when designed well, allow candidates to demonstrate their thinking in real time and within clearly defined parameters. But also, this is the kind of labor for which employers are expected to pay.
Moreover, it prevents this other weirdly occurring practice where some organizations attempt to assess candidates by asking them to present past work. This can seem like a reasonable alternative, but in practice, it raises a different set of questions: can the organization verify that the work was produced solely by the candidate? Do they understand the conditions under which that work was created? And in the worst case, are they inadvertently asking candidates to violate NDAs or other agreements with previous employers?
You may well ask me, “Edy, doesn’t that create the situation you spoke about at the beginning about how those people get paid?” It sure does and that’s still an obstacle, but at this point, these candidates have a better understanding of the ask and the transaction is clearer. There are also likely fewer people who are impacted and I would advocate that the organization actually take the time to help them understand how the payment works.
Creating Real Equity
It’s not fair of me to rant and rave about why this practice is problematic without actually giving some thought to what can make a process more equitable. Consider the following:
What level of role is this and how does the process properly reflect that?
How many interview rounds do you actually need (I would argue that if you need more than three (total), your process needs refinement)?
Are you including a task/work exercise and what are you testing for? Does the work exercise accomplish that?
How can that task or work exercise be designed so that you are extracting the minimal amount of labor necessary?
What candidate expectations can you manage at the beginning of the process (e.g. timeline and process, what each stage involves, who to contact with questions, etc.)?
How do we keep candidates engaged in the process (this includes how often you communicate with them and when they can expect to be notified of changes to their status in the process or the process itself)?
All of them help shift how power is exercised in the process. None of those things require a stipend.
Conclusion
Paying candidates for interviews may very well become more common. It may even become standard. But I do worry that we are mistaking a visible, feel-good practice for a meaningful shift toward equity. At the end of the day, an equitable practice does not an equitable process make. And if paying candidates is stopping an organization from subjecting them to five interviews, that is not automatically eliminating what other likely unreasonable practices are hidden in their processes, or worse, in their culture and organization.
If you are a non profit leader or HR practitioner looking for assistance in assessing the equity of your hiring process, PennSquared is here to help. Fill out a contact form, or schedule a free consultation.
