A practical guide to making evaluation rigorous, relevant and respectful

A hiring assessment may help a company collect better evidence.

It can also create a poor candidate experience when the person completing it does not understand:

• Why it is required
• What it measures
• How long it will take
• Who will see the results
• How the information will be used
• Whether an automated system will reject them
• What happens to their data afterward

Candidates are being asked to invest time, reveal information and accept an evaluation that may affect an important career decision.

Hiring teams therefore have two responsibilities:

1. Collect evidence relevant to the role
2. Treat the candidate fairly while collecting it

Rigour and respect are not competing objectives.

A well-designed assessment process should strengthen both.

Why candidate experience matters in assessment

Candidate experience is the candidate’s perception of the hiring process and how they were treated throughout it.

That perception can be shaped by:

• Communication
• Relevance
• Time required
• Technical usability
• Transparency
• Interviewer behaviour
• Privacy
• Feedback
• Decision speed
• Respect for the candidate’s effort

Assessment research on applicant reactions has repeatedly highlighted the importance of job relatedness, consistent treatment, explanations and giving candidates an appropriate opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities. SIOP and SHRM Foundation

A poor experience can affect more than offer acceptance.

Candidates may also be:

• Prospective customers
• Industry peers
• Referral sources
• Future applicants
• Members of the company’s professional community

The hiring process communicates something about how the organisation makes decisions and treats people.

1. Explain why the assessment exists

Do not send a candidate an unexplained link.

Before they begin, tell them:

• Which company is requesting the assessment
• Which role it relates to
• Why it forms part of the hiring process
• What kind of task they will complete
• How long it should take
• What the next stage will be

Weak communication

Please complete this assessment by tomorrow.

Better communication

As part of the Account Executive hiring process, we use a 20-minute role-specific assessment containing realistic B2B sales situations. It helps our hiring team identify areas to explore during the final interview. It does not automatically accept or reject candidates.

The second message reduces uncertainty without revealing assessment answers.

2. Make the assessment relevant to the role

Candidates are more likely to understand an assessment when the connection to the job is visible.

An enterprise Account Executive should not be asked to complete generic puzzles without an explanation of their relevance.

A sales manager should not be evaluated only through an individual prospecting test.

An SDR should not be required to build a complex enterprise account plan unless the role genuinely includes that responsibility.

Ask before using an assessment

• Which part of the role does this exercise represent?
• What capability are we examining?
• Does every candidate face a comparable task?
• Is the level appropriate for the position?
• Can the hiring team explain why the evidence matters?

If the organisation cannot explain the connection, the assessment may not deserve a place in the process.

3. Keep the time commitment proportionate

Candidate time is not free.

A short, early-stage screening assessment may be reasonable when application volume is high and the task is relevant.

A multi-hour assignment before the candidate has spoken with anyone can feel extractive.

The appropriate time commitment depends on:

• Hiring stage
• Seniority
• Complexity
• Candidate volume
• Value of the role
• Nature of the exercise
• Amount of preparation required

A practical principle

The earlier the hiring stage, the lighter the burden should usually be.

As the company asks for more candidate effort, it should provide more:

• Role clarity
• Human interaction
• Process information
• Commitment
• Opportunity for questions

Do not ask ten candidates to complete extensive unpaid work when the organisation is seriously considering only two.

4. Do not disguise productive work as an assessment

A work sample should evaluate capability.

It should not obtain free consulting, prospect lists, sales strategy or usable account research from candidates.

Avoid assignments such as:

• Build our complete target-account list
• Create a go-to-market strategy for our launch
• Write a full sequence we can use
• Analyse our live pipeline
• Prepare a detailed territory plan using confidential accounts
• Develop a commercial proposal for a current prospect

If the task resembles real company work, use fictional or historical information and limit the scope.

Candidates should know their work will be used only for evaluation.

5. Describe what the assessment measures accurately

Avoid exaggerated language.

An assessment should not be described as revealing:

• The candidate’s complete personality
• Their future sales performance
• Whether they are a natural salesperson
• Their guaranteed cultural fit
• Whether they will hit quota
• Their hidden psychological truth

Describe the tool according to what it actually does.

For example:

This exercise examines how candidates respond to several role-relevant sales situations. The output provides additional areas for the hiring team to investigate.

This is more credible than:

Our AI determines whether you will succeed in sales.

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology recommends paying attention to validity, reliability, fairness, transparency and job relevance when using AI-based selection assessments.

Marketing language should not outrun the evidence.

6. Tell candidates where AI is involved

The phrase “AI assessment” can describe very different systems.

AI may be used to:

• Generate questions
• Transcribe responses
• Summarise text
• Map evidence to a rubric
• Produce recommendations
• Rank candidates
• Automatically reject applications

Candidates and hiring teams should understand which of these applies.

Disclose:

• Whether AI analyses candidate responses
• Whether a person reviews the output
• Whether the system makes recommendations
• Whether it can automatically reject a candidate
• What data is processed
• Whether audio or video is recorded
• Whether customer or candidate data trains external models

The greater the system’s influence on the decision, the stronger the transparency and governance required.

7. Obtain meaningful consent

Consent should not be hidden inside a long legal document.

Before starting, candidates should be able to see:

• The purpose of the assessment
• The organisation requesting it
• Who may receive the report
• What information will be collected
• How the data will be used
• How long identifiable information will be retained
• Where to ask questions
• How to exercise applicable data rights

Consent should occur before the candidate begins providing assessment responses.

The candidate should also know what happens if they choose not to participate.

If participation is effectively required to remain in the process, describe that honestly.

8. Protect candidate data

Assessment responses may contain professional experiences, opinions and personal interpretations.

Treat them as sensitive employment-related information.

Hiring teams should ask vendors:

• Where is candidate data stored?
• Who can access it?
• How is access controlled?
• How long is it retained?
• Can it be deleted?
• Is it shared with subprocessors?
• Is it used for model training?
• Can candidates request a copy or summary?
• What happens when the customer relationship ends?
• How are security incidents handled?

Collect only what is necessary.

If the assessment does not require video, do not collect video merely because the platform supports it.

9. Design for accessibility

Candidates should not be disadvantaged because the assessment assumes one way of reading, responding, communicating or using technology.

Consider:

• Screen-reader compatibility
• Keyboard navigation
• Colour contrast
• Mobile access
• Language clarity
• Time limits
• Audio requirements
• Video requirements
• Cognitive load
• Internet bandwidth
• Neurodiverse candidates
• Candidates with disabilities

Provide a clear accommodation route.

Do not require candidates to disclose unnecessary medical information to request a reasonable adjustment.

An accommodation should help the candidate access the assessment. It should not change the capability being evaluated unless the job itself does not require that capability.

10. Avoid unnecessary speed pressure

Some sales roles require rapid responses.

Many important sales decisions require thought.

A short timer may turn an assessment of judgment into a test of reading speed or familiarity with the format.

Use time limits only when speed belongs to the construct being assessed.

If candidates are being evaluated on how they reason through a complex opportunity, allow enough time for them to understand the situation and respond meaningfully.

Tell them in advance whether:

• The assessment is timed
• Individual questions have limits
• They can pause
• They can return later
• Their response speed affects the result

11. Use comparable conditions

Fairness does not mean every candidate must produce the same answer.

It means they should receive comparable opportunities to demonstrate relevant capability.

Standardise:

• Instructions
• Time allowances
• Information provided
• Access to preparation materials
• Scoring criteria
• Accommodation process
• Technical support
• Follow-up procedure

If one candidate receives extra context during a role-play, document it and consider whether others should receive the same information.

Consistency makes comparisons more defensible.

12. Do not reduce the candidate to one score

A single number creates simplicity.

It can also hide uncertainty.

A responsible report should help the hiring team understand:

• What evidence was observed
• What the evidence may indicate
• Which areas remain unclear
• What requires interview follow-up
• What the assessment cannot conclude

Avoid automatic labels such as:

• Strong hire
• Weak hire
• Bad fit
• Natural closer
• Not resilient
• High potential

People are being evaluated for a role within a context.

The output should reflect that complexity.

13. Never let the assessment make the entire decision

An assessment can add evidence.

It should not become the sole basis for hiring or rejection.

Combine it with:

• Role requirements
• Structured interviews
• Relevant work samples
• Career history
• References
• Candidate explanations
• Human review

If the assessment raises a concern, investigate it.

Do not treat an algorithmic observation as an unquestionable fact.

Hiring teams should be able to challenge the output, review the evidence and record why they agreed or disagreed.

14. Give the candidate an opportunity to provide context

An assessment captures responses under particular conditions.

The candidate may have:

• Misunderstood part of the scenario
• Made an assumption not visible to the reviewer
• Interpreted the role differently
• Faced a technical issue
• Chosen an answer based on previous experience
• Needed an accommodation
• Had relevant context the assessment did not collect

Use the interview to investigate.

For example:

“In this scenario, you chose to continue pursuing the opportunity. What evidence made you believe it still deserved attention?”

This allows the candidate to explain their reasoning.

The assessment becomes the beginning of a better conversation—not the end of the decision.

15. Communicate what happens next

After completion, candidates should know:

• Whether their response was received
• What the next stage is
• When they should expect an update
• Who to contact with questions
• Whether another interview will discuss the results

Silence after asking someone to complete an assessment creates unnecessary frustration.

Even an automated confirmation is better than uncertainty.

16. Consider giving candidates something useful

Companies may not be able to share internal hiring reports.

They can still respect the candidate’s effort.

Depending on the process, candidates may receive:

• Confirmation of completion
• A short assessment summary
• General feedback
• Interview discussion
• Data-access instructions
• Information about retention and deletion
• Clear closure when the process ends

Do not promise detailed individual feedback if the organisation cannot provide it consistently.

A modest, reliable commitment is better than a generous promise that is rarely honoured.

Candidate-experience checklist for sales assessments

Before the assessment

• Is the role clearly defined?
• Is the assessment relevant?
• Has the purpose been explained?
• Is the time commitment visible?
• Are technical requirements clear?
• Is an accommodation route available?
• Has consent been obtained?

During the assessment

• Are instructions understandable?
• Is the interface accessible?
• Is technical support available?
• Are time limits justified?
• Are all candidates given comparable conditions?
• Is unnecessary data collection avoided?

After the assessment

• Is completion confirmed?
• Does the candidate know the next step?
• Is the report restricted to authorised recipients?
• Can the output be reviewed by a human?
• Can the candidate provide context?
• Is retention and deletion information available?
• Is the assessment only one part of the decision?

Questions to ask an assessment vendor

Before adding a platform to the hiring process, ask:

Measurement

• What does the assessment measure?
• How does it relate to the role?
• How was the scoring approach developed?
• What conclusions should not be drawn?

Candidate experience

• How long does it take?
• Can candidates pause?
• Is it mobile accessible?
• What accommodations are supported?
• What does the candidate see before beginning?

AI and automation

• Where is AI used?
• Does the system rank candidates?
• Can it automatically reject them?
• Can reviewers inspect the evidence?
• Can humans override recommendations?

Privacy

• Where is data stored?
• Who can access it?
• How long is it retained?
• Can candidates request deletion?
• Is data used to train models?
• Which subprocessors receive it?

Responsible use

• Does the vendor prohibit sole reliance?
• Are hiring teams trained to interpret the output?
• Are limitations communicated?
• Can candidates provide additional context?
• How are fairness concerns investigated?

If the vendor cannot answer clearly, the hiring team should hesitate before asking candidates to participate.

How RecruiZing approaches candidate experience

RecruiZing is paid for by the hiring organisation.

Candidates are not charged to participate.

Before beginning, candidates are shown:

• The organisation or recruiter requesting the assessment
• The role being assessed
• The purpose of the process
• Who may receive the output
• The default retention period for identifiable candidate data
• Links to privacy and responsible-use information

Candidates must provide explicit consent before continuing.

The assessment uses role-relevant sales situations and typically takes around 20 minutes.

Reports are shared only with authorised hiring recipients.

RecruiZing does not:

• Rank candidates
• Automatically reject candidates
• Guarantee future performance
• Replace structured interviews
• Serve as the sole basis for hiring or rejection

Candidates may contact IncaZing to request their data or an assessment summary, subject to the applicable process and legal requirements.

The objective is to give hiring teams additional evidence while keeping the candidate informed about how the assessment is being used.

Better assessment should not require worse candidate experience

Hiring teams need evidence.

Candidates deserve clarity.

The two belong together.

A rigorous sales assessment should be:

• Relevant to the role
• Proportionate in length
• Transparent in purpose
• Accessible
• Consistent
• Secure
• Reviewed by people
• Limited in its claims
• One input among several

The company should be able to explain the process to the candidate without hiding behind the vendor or the algorithm.

That is a useful test of responsible assessment design:

If we are uncomfortable explaining how this works to the person being evaluated, should we be using it at all?