I’ve read only a little research on work samples, and I unfortunately haven’t yet read anything about being paid for work samples. Thus, I’m only able to share my own perspectives. My personal perspectives on work samples are roughly that:
a small amount of work (maybe 10-15 minutes) doesn’t really need to be paid, but larger amounts should be paid as a matter of principle.
I’ve read informal accounts online of relatively experienced applicants being upset or offended at being asked to do a work sample. The only accounts that I’ve read have been from developers/programmers with multiple years of work experience who were given a relatively large task; they were insulted that they needed to ‘prove their worth.’ I suspect that this negative reaction could be lessened by better communication around the work sample, and by making the sample smaller/shorter.
I think that paying an applicant as a contractor for a small piece of real work sounds nice if such a piece of work exists. I think that the reality tends to be harder, as often there is a lot of contextual information that a person needs in order to be able to do a piece of work.
I think of The Mythical Man-Month, and the idea that A) the communication costs of adding another staff person are high, and B) not all tasks can be broken into smaller tasks to be distributed.
I imagine that for some jobs it is easier and for some jobs it is harder. I can easily imagine a applicant to a recruiter job being asked to review 5 resumes and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each. But what about an applicant for a job to run an Intro Fellowship? I don’t want a bunch of new fellows to meet this person, and perceive this person as part of my team, and then this person screws up and it reflects badly on my organizations reputation.
It should probably not even be called a work sample under the circumstances I describe, but rather just work.
For example, if I’m hiring a communicator, I could ask them to spend two hours on improving the text of a web page. That could be a typical actual work task at some point, but this “work sample” also creates immediate value. If the improvements are good, they could be published regardless of whether that person is hired or not. This is also why you would pay an applicant for those two hours.
A very simplified example, but I hope the point comes across. And like you mention, for some types of work such isolated tasks are much more prevalent.
I’ve read only a little research on work samples, and I unfortunately haven’t yet read anything about being paid for work samples. Thus, I’m only able to share my own perspectives. My personal perspectives on work samples are roughly that:
a small amount of work (maybe 10-15 minutes) doesn’t really need to be paid, but larger amounts should be paid as a matter of principle.
I’ve read informal accounts online of relatively experienced applicants being upset or offended at being asked to do a work sample. The only accounts that I’ve read have been from developers/programmers with multiple years of work experience who were given a relatively large task; they were insulted that they needed to ‘prove their worth.’ I suspect that this negative reaction could be lessened by better communication around the work sample, and by making the sample smaller/shorter.
I think that paying an applicant as a contractor for a small piece of real work sounds nice if such a piece of work exists. I think that the reality tends to be harder, as often there is a lot of contextual information that a person needs in order to be able to do a piece of work.
I think of The Mythical Man-Month, and the idea that A) the communication costs of adding another staff person are high, and B) not all tasks can be broken into smaller tasks to be distributed.
I imagine that for some jobs it is easier and for some jobs it is harder. I can easily imagine a applicant to a recruiter job being asked to review 5 resumes and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each. But what about an applicant for a job to run an Intro Fellowship? I don’t want a bunch of new fellows to meet this person, and perceive this person as part of my team, and then this person screws up and it reflects badly on my organizations reputation.
It should probably not even be called a work sample under the circumstances I describe, but rather just work.
For example, if I’m hiring a communicator, I could ask them to spend two hours on improving the text of a web page. That could be a typical actual work task at some point, but this “work sample” also creates immediate value. If the improvements are good, they could be published regardless of whether that person is hired or not. This is also why you would pay an applicant for those two hours.
A very simplified example, but I hope the point comes across. And like you mention, for some types of work such isolated tasks are much more prevalent.