A recruiter sparked furious controversy after revealing he had rejected a Gen Z applicant who refused to spend 90 minutes on a recruitment test because it “seemed like a lot of work”.
The employer, who goes by @M.Stanfield on X, formerly known as Twitter, took to the social media platform to share his frustrations about an applicant he had interviewed for an investment analyst position.
In the tweet, he explained that he had emailed the anonymous Gen Z applicant and asked him to do a “financial model test,” which would take about an hour and a half.
But when the job seeker refused to perform the task, the recruiter immediately became discouraged and took to the website to express his annoyance at the applicant’s attitude, sparking a furious debate among other users, some of whom insisted that It should never have required a candidate to perform any type of “free work.”
A recruiter sparked controversy after revealing he rejected a Gen Z applicant for refusing to complete a 90-minute post-interview task.
A Twitter user took to the social media platform to share his frustrations about a candidate he had interviewed for an investment analyst position and whom he was no longer considering.
The tweet read: ‘Me: I really enjoyed the call. Please see the attached financial model test.
‘Generation Z Applicant: This seems like a lot of work. Without knowing where I stand in the process, I don’t feel comfortable spending 90 minutes in Excel.
‘Me:…well…I can tell you what your situation is now.’
The recruiter’s call sparked a heated debate, in which many people supported the candidate.
One person said: “I sympathize with the applicant.”
Someone else wrote: “Then pay them for the 90 minutes of their time.”
‘Better yet, give them a real problem. And yes, pay them,’ another user added.
One comment read: ‘You see he had all the answers in the world but he can’t afford 90 minutes of people’s time, hmm looks like the company is a red flag. Don’t value his staff.
The recruiter’s call sparked a heated debate and many people supported the candidate.
“If you want the employee’s job, hire him first,” one user added.
Someone else wrote: ‘But you don’t think it’s important to pay people for their work, even if the work is a trial, if it requires hours with no guarantee of hire, pay or ability to even know the odds, it doesn’t seem like enough. a smart investment of time and shows from the start how little the company will value your time.’
Another user added: ‘Are you surprised that people don’t want to work for free without knowing whether they are getting a job or not?’
“Boomer mentality: you’re not the only employer and good candidates have options,” someone else added.
One user added: ‘The applicant is right. Unless you offered to make up for those 90 minutes. He has no idea how many applicants are left in the process. He probably has interviews with other companies. Effort versus reward definitely doesn’t exist for this. Good for him.’
Another social media user wrote: ‘He raises a good point. You are selecting the most desperate candidates.
‘To be fair, many places simply use applicants for free labor. The job does not exist. “Testing” is the only job they need to do,” another person added.
However, other people on the web agreed with the recruiter.
However, other people on the web agreed with the recruiter.
One person said: ‘You don’t seem to understand that this person was just an applicant. If you want the rewards of the company, he enters the door first.
Someone else wrote: “Because I currently teach Generation Z, this unfortunately doesn’t surprise me.”
‘How can you show that you can do the job well? It’s the chicken or the egg situation. And there is a saying: no pain, no gain. If you don’t want to work, don’t expect returns. “Be happy staying with your parents,” another person added.
Another user added: ‘What free labor? Do you really think PROOF of your skills will be used in a deal? Do you think someone would provide confidential information to a candidate to obtain a valuation to use in a deal?