Hiring assessments have become a point of friction between candidates and employers. Done well, they bring clarity and fairness to the process. Done poorly, they frustrate candidates, waste time, and fail to predict performance.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Used strategically, hiring projects are one of the most powerful tools for increasing selection accuracy, reducing bias, and improving both candidate and business outcomes. This article explores what makes a project effective — and how companies can design smarter assessments that create clarity, not confusion.

When Interviews Fall Short

Most interviews are still built on a flawed assumption: that people can accurately assess skill by talking.

But great conversation doesn’t always translate into great performance. The person who “nails the interview” isn’t always the person who’ll excel in the role. Hiring based on rapport, shared background, or superficial confidence — sometimes called ‘hiring on vibes’ — doesn’t just risk poor hires. It undermines fairness and equity in the process.

Hiring should be about predicting success. And for many roles, that requires more than a conversation.

That’s where projects come in.

Why Assessments Work — When Done Right

The right hiring project helps hiring teams assess practical skills in context. It shows whether someone can actually do the work, not just talk about it. That’s especially critical for roles that involve core deliverables from day one — like writing content, managing ad campaigns, or leading technical delivery.

But not all projects are created equal. Some are unfair, overly time-consuming, or poorly designed. So what separates the useful from the useless?

Time-bound

Be clear on how long it should take — and stick to it. Vague or open-ended projects can exploit candidates’ time and create unnecessary pressure. If it takes more than an hour, consider paying candidates for their time. Transparency matters.

Role-relevant

Every task should mirror something the candidate would actually do on the job. If it’s not representative of the day-to-day, it’s not predictive. Don’t test for abstract qualities if they’re not part of the role.

Objective and scorable

Projects should be specific enough to score consistently. That means using a clear rubric to assess quality — not subjective judgment based on personal taste or familiarity. The goal is to reduce bias, not introduce more.

Too often, hiring managers request projects that are abstract, subjective, or overly focused on preferences. “Pick a topic” might sound harmless — but without a defined framework, the task quickly becomes an exercise in guessing what the hiring manager wants.

Instead, structure the project clearly. Set expectations on time, topic, format, and evaluation. And make sure it’s aligned with the actual demands of the role.

Projects Are a Supplement — Not a Substitute

Used properly, assessments are one component of a wider picture. They’re not a replacement for structured interviews, values alignment, or contextual conversation. But they help round out the picture and reduce reliance on performance in a single format.

They’re particularly effective when positioned mid-process — not at the very start (before a candidate has context), and not at the very end (when bias may already be entrenched).

One approach that works well:

• Initial recruiter or people screen
• Hiring manager call to confirm technical relevance
• Project assessment
• Team interviews
• Final conversation

This sequencing gives candidates enough information to complete the project with context, while also ensuring the business doesn’t waste time progressing candidates who lack key capabilities.

Crucially, it also prevents a common failure pattern: investing hours in interviews, only to uncover a skills gap right at the end. When this happens, it’s not just frustrating — it can bias teams toward hiring someone they “like” rather than someone who meets the brief.

Setting Candidates Up for Success

Good hiring assessments aren’t just better for hiring managers. They improve the candidate experience too — when done right.

Candidates deserve to know upfront what’s expected. That includes whether a project will be required, when in the process it happens, how long it will take, and whether it’s paid. Surprising someone with a project in the final round is a quick way to lose trust.

It also sends a broader signal. If a company runs a thoughtful, relevant, and clearly structured project — it shows the organisation is serious about hiring well. If it sends something that’s long, vague, unpaid, or disconnected from the actual role — it suggests chaos.

Assessments are a two-way signal. Candidates are judging you, too.

And in a market where people are applying to multiple roles, the best talent will opt out of confusing, time-consuming, or unfair processes.

The Rubric is Everything

A good project without a rubric is still flawed.

Why? Because humans are inconsistent. What one person calls a ‘4 out of 5’ another might score as a ‘2’. And without alignment, feedback becomes subjective and unreliable.

The solution? A shared rubric — ideally calibrated by multiple reviewers.

Define what good looks like in advance. Create clear criteria that measure what actually matters for the role. And where possible, have two people score the work to reduce individual bias and surface different observations.

It’s also worth noting: generative AI has made it easier than ever to fake it. That’s not a reason to ditch projects — but it is a reason to dig deeper into the thinking behind the submission. In team interviews, consider referencing elements from the project and asking the candidate to explain their choices. That often reveals far more than the document itself.

Let Projects Inform Onboarding Too

One emerging benefit of projects is their potential to support onboarding.

If structured properly, a candidate project doesn’t just tell you if someone is suitable — it also highlights where they may need support. By identifying strengths and gaps early, you can tailor onboarding plans to accelerate ramp-up and performance.

For example: a strong candidate might show excellent content creation skills but need support on brand tone or stakeholder alignment. Instead of discovering this months later, you can build a plan from day one.

This makes projects more than a selection tool — they become a success-enablement tool.

Candidate Experience Isn’t Just About Tone — It’s About Clarity

Most candidate frustration stems from poor process clarity.

That includes:

• Vague timelines
• Unclear stages
• Hidden surprises (like late-stage projects)
• Lack of alignment across interviewers

A well-run assessment process eliminates that ambiguity. It shows candidates what to expect, what’s expected of them, and what success looks like. In return, they’re more likely to opt in — and more likely to trust your company even if they don’t get the job.

And in competitive markets, reputation matters.

Smarter, Shorter, More Predictive

Finally — and critically — projects help reduce bloated hiring processes.

If it’s taking your team 8+ hours to assess a mid-level hire, something’s wrong. The best hiring teams look for ways to shorten the process without compromising rigour. A well-placed project can replace two hours of low-value conversation — and deliver stronger, fairer signals.

Fewer stages. Higher confidence. Better outcomes.

Hiring Isn’t Perfect — But It Can Be Better

Every team has room to improve. But the goal of hiring isn’t to build process for process’ sake. It’s to hire the right person, fairly and efficiently.

Done right, assessments help us move closer to that goal. They reduce noise. They increase clarity. And they help teams hire not just people they like — but people who can actually do the job.

Looking to improve your hiring process or assessment design? Contact Fulcrum today to explore solutions tailored to your business.