i prefer simple work related assignments reddit

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Career Planning
• Finding a Job
• Interview Strategies

Interview Question: "How Would You Describe Your Work Style?"

What the Interviewer Really Wants To Know

How to answer interview questions about your work style, examples of the best answers, tips for giving the best response, what not to say, possible follow-up questions, frequently asked questions (faqs).

The Balance

In addition to learning about the skills you have that qualify you for a job, interviewers also want to know about how you work to determine if you're a fit for the role and the organization. Asking candidates to describe their work style is a way to decipher whether they are a good match.

While this  open-ended question  might seem vague, it allows you to show yourself in a positive light. In your response, you can strategically highlight how your work style is a good fit for the company at hand. 

Get tips on how to answer interview questions about your work style, what (and what not) to say when you respond, and review examples of the best responses.

Key Takeaways

• Interviewers ask about work style to help determine if a candidate is a good match for the company culture and work environment.
• Take the time to research the company. The more you know about the company's work environment and style, the more you'll be able to tailor your response to show that you'd easily fit in.
• Share examples of your work style when you respond. Examples are always more meaningful than a long string of descriptors (like "hard worker") that hiring managers hear all the time in interviews.

This question helps interviewers decide whether you will fit in well with the  company culture  and the requirements of the job. For instance, if you require complete silence and focus to work, but the office has a bustling, collaborative atmosphere (and an open floor plan), you might not be a strong fit.

When answering this question, it is important to keep the particular job in mind. Avoid clichés (like “hard worker” and “good communication skills”) and focus on specific elements of your work style that fit with the position and company. 

Watch Now: 4 Tips for Answering Questions About Work Style

This question is far easier to answer if you  do some research  before the job interview. Analyze the job listing to  match your qualifications with their requirements , and prepare answers that show how your work style makes you the best candidate for the job.

Then, go a little further. Review the company’s website, media kit (almost always available on their site), and social media presence to learn which qualities are most valued at the organization.

Most employers have a good idea of the kind of person who’ll succeed on their team, whether it's someone willing to do "whatever it takes" or a worker who'll build "lasting relationships."

It’s also important to be honest, while still highlighting the positive. Don’t claim to be a perfectionist if you’re a big-picture person; instead, emphasize your vision and commitment to quality.

Example Answer #1

My work style is extremely flexible—working on so many different projects requires me to be adaptive. In general, I try to work on one project at a time, working as quickly and efficiently as possible to achieve the best results. All of my projects require collaboration, so I use the team environment to check for errors. I am a perfectionist and a driven worker, and I think my clear communication skills allow me to bring out the best in any team, on any project.

Why It Works: This answer establishes the candidate's preferred work style (one project at a time) while also highlighting other key workplace skills, such as flexibility and collaboration. Unless the job description specifically calls for multitasking, this response ticks off a lot of positive in-demand qualities for candidates.

Example Answer #2

I am extremely dependable. I have rarely missed a day's work, and am known for coming in early and staying late to finish important tasks and achieve results. This dependability extends to my collaborative work as well. I always meet deadlines and help my teammates to meet theirs as well. For example, on my last project, a teammate was struggling to complete his assignment for the team, and I stayed late every day that week to help him not only complete his assignment, but exceed our initial estimated turnaround time for the project.

Why It Works: This answer gets its power from the examples provided. Hiring managers value employees who show a willingness to go the extra mile and support co-workers.

Example Answer #3

I always keep on top of my projects. Owing to my organizational skills and efficiency, I can successfully juggle multiple projects at once. While I complete most of my work independently, I greatly value input and will consult with team members to ensure we're all on the same track. I also appreciate checking in regularly with my boss to update her on my progress and ask about any issues that have arisen. This open communication helps me complete tasks efficiently and accurately.

Why It Works: This answer highlights the candidate's strengths and shows a flexible nature.

Think through your work style:  Do you work fast? Enjoy collaboration? Try to do your hardest project in the early morning? Have a preferred way of engaging with your manager? These are all things you can discuss in your answer.

Be brief:  You can't mention every aspect of your work style in your response, most likely, so focus on the elements that demonstrate your best qualities and fit with the job at hand.

Give examples:  Consider including a brief example that emphasizes your work style. For example, mention a time when your efficiency and  ability to multitask helped you complete an assignment a week before the deadline.

Be honest:  If you truly can't work when your desk is piled up with documents, be upfront. But do try to be cautious about any overly firm statements about your work environment needs.

If you're still not sure how to frame your response, consider focusing on one of these areas:

• Speed and accuracy: If you work quickly and efficiently, you might mention this in your answer, especially if the job requires meeting tight deadlines. However, it's important to impress the interviewer with your competency and accuracy, rather than just your speed. If you say you work at a fast and steady pace, emphasize the strategies you use to avoid making mistakes.
• Structuring your day: You may want to focus on how you organize your day. Do you prefer to do your most difficult tasks in the morning? Do you prefer to focus on one assignment at a time, or multitask? You might also mention how many hours you typically work. If you are someone who always goes above and beyond, and stays late to complete tasks, say so.
• Working alone or in collaboration: The employer might want to know whether you prefer to work solo or collaboratively. Think carefully about the job before answering this question. Most jobs require at least some collaboration, so even if you prefer to work alone, emphasize that you value others’ input.
• Taking direction: Another important element of your work style is how you like to communicate with your boss. Do you prefer to be guided, or do you like to be given a task and left alone to complete it? Thinking about your ideal relationship with your employer will help both you and the interviewer decide whether you are  a good fit for the job .
• Your communication style: If this job requires constant communication, you might want to emphasize how you communicate with employers, staff, and clients throughout the workday. Do you prefer to communicate by email, phone conversations, or face-to-face meetings? Again, think about what this job requires before you answer. Most jobs will require a combination of communication tactics. 

Give overly specific, rigid responses:  Unless you can very precisely nail down both the company and the interviewer's preferred work style, it's best not to be too definitive. If you say, "I work best alone" and the manager wants a team player, you'll have automatically disqualified yourself.

Use clichés:  During interviews, everyone is a hard worker, detail-oriented, and a team player. It's fine to claim these traits for yourself, but since these words and phrases are uttered so frequently, back them up with examples if you use them.

Be dishonest or fail to answer the questions:  While you do not want to be too specific and make yourself seem rigid, it's also unwise to be so vague in your response that the interviewer doesn't get a sense of you as an employee. We all have preferences when it comes to our workplace. This is your moment to share yours. If you truly dislike morning meetings, or have some other quirk, it may be worth mentioning it in your response.

• Describe the pace at which you work.  Best Answers
• Do you enjoy working in a fast-paced environment? - Best Answers
• Do you take work home with you?  Best Answers
• Tell me about your work ethic. - Best Answers
• What type of work environment do you prefer? - Best Answers

What should I do if my work style doesn't fit with the company's work environment?

You have a couple of options if the position doesn't seem like it's a good fit. You can think it over and consider whether you would be able to adjust your work style to mesh with that of the organization. If it doesn't seem feasible, you may want to withdraw your application for the position and consider other jobs that are a better match.

Should I send a thank-you note after a job interview?

It's always a good idea to send a thank-you note after an interview. The easiest way to show your appreciation for the interviewer's time is to send an email relaying your thanks and reiterating your interest in the job. You can also mention some of your key qualifications for the role.

• About Katie
• Application Essays
• The Journal
• Join Thousands on My List

What homework should I do first? The easy stuff or hard stuff?

Katie Azevedo December 13, 2016 good habits , homework , productivity , study skills , time management

By Katie Azevedo, M.Ed.

What homework should I do first?

This is the first question I often hear when a student feels overwhelmed with assignments. It’s also the first thought that pops into my own head when my to-do list runs onto page 17 of my planner! (Swapping out homework for tasks , of course.)

We all have things to do — whether homework assignments, work projects, personal goals, etc. But not all tasks are created equal. Not all tasks take the same amount of time to complete or have the same impact when they’re completed.

So how do students know what homework to do first — the big, daunting assignments? Or the small, quick ones?

The first answer: First do whatever homework is due soonest. Have trouble with procrastination? Here are some procrastination tips .

The other answer to ‘ What homework should I do first? ‘: It depends. (Least satisfying answer ever. I know.)

A classic Pros and Cons list reveals plenty of reasons to do the quick and easy homework assignments first, and plenty of reasons to do the harder tasks first. 

Despite the above advantages and disadvantages of tackling the easy or the hard homework first, there really is a proper way to approach your homework assignments that will set you up for getting more done . And here it is:

Do what works for you!

How to know what approach works for you

We all work differently and we all respond to pressure differently. If you are easily frustrated and are quick to feel overwhelmed when things get tough, then perhaps you’re the type of person who should tackle the small, quick homework assignments first. In school, start your afternoons by completing the easiest assignments: doing so will motivate you to move onto the harder ones. This is called “grabbing the low-hanging fruit.” At home, same thing: pick up a few items off your bedroom floor before you dig into your deep cleaning routine. At the gym, start your workout with a short walk to warm up before you hit something harder.

On the other hand, if you tire easily or get bored when things are too simple, then bang out the tough stuff first. In school, start with the biggest, most annoying looming homework assignments (even if they’re not due for a while) so you don’t exhaust yourself on the little assignments. At home, get the biggest project out of the way first (clean the garage!), and then pick away at the smaller tasks.  At the gym, go big or go home. (Or go big, go small, and then go home. Ha.)

What I do when I’m trying to figure out what “homework” to do first

Personally, I go back and forth when it comes to choosing which items from my to-do list to tackle first. Sometimes I start with the small stuff, and sometimes I “eat the frog” first. (I don’t really eat reptiles. “Eat that frog” is the title of an awesome book about time management by Brian Tracy. It’s an expression that refers to killing the big, gross assignments first.) It sort of depends on my mood on a particular day, how much free time I have (scattered moments vs large chunks), and what the task or project is.

So my final advice is this: If you’re constantly questioning what homework should I do first,  try both ways.

Try starting with the small tasks and see how you feel. Then another time start with a big task and see how you feel. Compare how productive you were (or weren’t) and how you felt during each approach.

Another idea is that you could start with a small homework assignment, then do a hard one, and then take a short break. Do another small homework assignment, do another hard one, and then take another short break. Keep going until you’re done with all your assignments.  

So this homework strategy looks like this:

Small Assignment + Big Assignment + Short Break (Repeat as many times as you need)

You can use this strategy over the course of a single afternoon, or over the course of a week. Or, like, forever, really. So the next time you’re wondering  what homework should I do first,  try alternating between easy and hard tasks, while paying attention to how much you actually get done. And then you’ll find your answer!

For a full tutorial on the 5 steps of proper homework prioritization, read this.

Subscribe to ReportCard Newsletter!

Get your FREE download of 25 School Habits and Hacks when you sign up for our monthly newsletter featuring awesome school tricks and tips

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Hardest or Easiest Work First? What the Research Shows

Hardest or easiest work first? It’s one of the largest questions in productivity management, and one that has been under debate or decades. 

There are two patterns of thought on this topic. Some productivity experts believe that by starting on your quickest, simplest tasks first, you build momentum that carries you through to the harder tasks. However, other experts believe that completing your hardest tasks first is the key to getting things done more efficiently.  Research shows that people who execute their most difficult tasks first are generally more productive and high achieving than those who start easy and work their way up.  

Since productivity is a cornerstone of successful business, there have been many studies performed to analyze what methodologies make people most productive. Read on to find out what their research revealed. 

If you are looking for the best study tools out there, you should read our article on the best study tools to enhance your studying at the link below:

The Ultimate Study Tools You Must Use to Succeed!

Why Is Doing the Easy Thing First Is Less Productive

Completing the easiest items first is less productive. This idea is reinforced by behavioral research that shows that starting with easier tasks first is not helpful overall.

The data shows this is the case even though it can initially feel good to take the path of least resistance in an attempt to get the ball rolling. The human brain is wired to feel positive about short-term rewards, so we are more inclined to take actions that result in gaining those short-term rewards. 

These are the basic reasons found by behavioral research that doing easier things before hard things in a productivity workflow is counterproductive: 

• The stress of putting off a difficult task negatively affects productivity towards all other tasks performed. 

Scientific studies have shown that the dread of having to execute a major task requires a large amount of subconscious focus.

The weight of having a major task on your mind can make you lose focus on the task at hand. This loss of focus makes the task take longer to complete. It can also lead to the task completing less effectively. 

• People make the choice to complete easier tasks first not on the logical basis of what methodology is more productive, but on what method makes them feel better. 

The choice to do easier tasks first is rarely made with productivity in mind. 

Rather, people choose this workflow method because it elicits positive emotions that produce a short-term psychological high, not because it works better. 

• Humans have a psychological tendency to enjoy experiences that improve over time. 

When you start an easy task and start building up to harder and harder tasks, this can create negative psychological feedback. 

Rather than building momentum, this process psychologically feels akin to pushing a boulder that gets heavier and heavier the further you push it. The increasing difficulty of subsequent tasks is an exhausting process, not an empowering one and has a poor effect on overall productivity. 

• Smaller tasks are generally easier to defer, delegate, or avoid entirely than large tasks if time or motivation runs low. 

Difficult tasks tend to be important tasks, and you’re less likely to be able to avoid them without suffering negative consequences.

However, if a person does their difficult tasks first, it is simpler to postpone or delegate small tasks. 

• People have a limited amount of energy in any given week to produce or perform. 

After a 50-hour workweek, behavioral scientists have found that the work output of an employee workforce drops off a cliff. Once the number of hours passes 55 hours, work output is almost nil due to exhaustion. 

The impact of this decline in being effective is that people who work 70 hours a week are achieving next to nothing in the extra fifteen hours they choose to work. Doing hard tasks first ensures there is enough physical and cognitive energy to complete these important tasks.

• It is more productive to consider whether you need to perform small tasks at all rather than do them first. 

One of the greatest hacks of productivity is not to perform your to-do list more efficiently, but to shorten the overall number of tasks on it. 

Shorter tasks lend themselves to evaluation easier as they are typically simpler than longer, more-involved tasks. Before doing any task, a two-step evaluation should be performed to determine if:

• The task is worth doing.
• If the task is worth doing, am I the best person to do it. 

It is both easier to evaluate the validity of doing a task and whether you are the best person to do it with smaller tasks. This process alone can save you a significant amount of time and energy.

• The best measure of productivity is the quality of tasks performed, not quantity. 

For example, performing ten different small tasks to organize your office is great. However, if these small tasks stop you from meeting a deadline on a major customer deliverable, they weren’t worth doing.

Taking the time to access the relative importance of each task as well as its estimated difficulty and duration is essential.

• People performing small tasks tend to multitask, and multitasking is not productive–it only feels productive. 

Studies show that people who multitask are generally less productive (and less accurate in their work) than those who monotask. 

The human brain is not good at multi-tasking. Our brains are tremendously powerful and great at many things but multi-tasking is not one of them. If fact, studies have linked heavy multi-tasking to poorer performance on simple memory tasks. Researchers have also seen in brain scans that the human brain struggles significantly with multitasking.

Even though it feels more productive, performing a batch of small tasks is typically not as productive as getting that hardest task out of the way first. 

• Completing smaller tasks first is constructive procrastination, and destroys productivity.  

If your goal is to complete important work consistently and you are procrastinating, you are not going to produce consistently. 

Cutting through resistance to complete hard tasks first eliminates procrastination and increases your general efficiency. 

Why Do People Choose To Work on Easy Tasks First?

The reason the “path of least resistance” exists as an idiom is because people generally have a tendency to procrastinate on difficult tasks and perform smaller tasks instead. Completing smaller tasks generates a feeling of productivity. 

Behavioral scientists call this tendency  “task completion bias.”  

When you succumb to task completion bias, you feel more productive because they are getting a larger quantity of smaller tasks done. However, as these tasks have less intrinsic value, you end up being ultimately less productive. 

People who choose the path of least resistance are driven by the satisfaction derived from completing a task. However, this is dangerous to productivity as the satisfaction derived is not coupled appropriately to the level of importance of the task itself.

Why Do the Hard Thing First? 

Productivity gurus like to quote Mark Twain’s famous advice towards productivity, which says to “eat the frog” or perform your hardest task right off the bat. This advice holds water in both behavioral research and anecdotal observation.

In their exploration of behavioral work analysis, scientists have found the following:

Most successful and productive workers consistently put their most difficult tasks first ahead of smaller tasks. 

In productivity circles, this concept is usually called a Most Important Tasks (MIT) list. 

Prioritization is essential in deciding what tasks to do first. While most people do what they feel like doing at the moment, it is better to complete the most important tasks first.

Here are some of the reasons why it is more productive to execute your most difficult tasks first: 

• Doing the hardest task first means you are more likely to complete it. 

The overwhelming majority of people will be less motivated at the end of their day than at the beginning of it due to decision fatigue and erosion of physical and mental energy. 

Hard tasks should be performed first because that is when you have the most energy.

• Willpower has a ceiling and doesn’t last.

You use willpower throughout the day to force yourself to do everything from picking what you want for lunch to brushing your teeth before you leave for work. By the time you get home, your brain is exhausted from forcing you to act. 

The limits of willpower are the reason why people who are trying to get into exercise should work out first thing in the morning.

The reality is fewer people have the willpower to go out and exercise after a full day of executive function performing other work. 

• Getting the hardest task out of the way allows you to coast and creates a positive mood, which increases productivity. 

Happy people get more things done, and few things make a person happier than knowing they no longer have to dread a hard task. 

The relief you feel when you’ve gotten a high-value item checked off your to-do list sets the tone for the rest of your day. You are more likely to finish your other work in a good mood and avoid the emotional demoralization that comes with decision fatigue. 

• Productivity follows the Pareto principle. 

In the  Pareto principle , the concept is that 80% of your results are the result of 20% of your work. In other words, it’s not the amount of time you spend working. Rather, it is about focusing on the tasks that matter, that move the needle.

By this principle, which echoes across economic theory and management, if you only achieve the two hardest tasks on your to-do list, you’ve still produced more quality work than you would have if you had completed the other eight tasks combined. 

Applying the Pareto principle to task management, tackling and completing only the most important tasks will have a superior impact on your productivity. In other words, you get more “bang for your buck” in completing larger, more important tasks than lesser, smaller tasks. This principle even applies if you do more smaller tasks. As mentioned earlier, measure your productivity based on the importance of task, not quantity of task. Tim Ferriss covered the benefits of the Pareto principle in his epic book The Four Hour Workweek . If you have not read this book yet, you owe it to yourself to do so.

• Putting off the hardest task is not just unproductive; it has the potential to create more work. 

Harder work is work that is easier to screw up, and if you are tired at the end of the day, you’re more likely to make mistakes.

Having to fix mistakes just adds more work on top of the work you already had, so it’s the opposite of productivity. You’re growing your work rather than paring it down. 

Tips and Tricks for Completing Your Hardest Work First

• Break difficult tasks into a batch of smaller tasks. 

Most hard tasks can be broken down into smaller, simpler tasks. Breaking the complex task down into simpler tasks allows you to use task completion bias to your advantage. You are essentially tricking your brain into believing it is doing easy tasks and allows you to build momentum. A great way of breaking your tasks down into smaller tasks is mind-mapping. Mindmapping allows you to create a relational diagram of your task and its related subtasks. I wrote a blog post on mind-mapping that you can find at the link below:

Link to Mindmapping Blog Post

• Prioritize your to-do list and pick the top hardest or high-quality tasks. Those are your most important things. 

The heart of true productivity lies in knowing what it is you need to accomplish versus what you just think you need to do. This philosophy is how you determine task value, which determines how productive you are. If you can identify the  top two or three most important tasks  in your list, these tasks will hold the same productivity value as the rest of the list combined. 

Even if you only do these two or three things and nothing else, you will have been extremely productive in terms of task value. 

• Set up your difficult tasks ahead of time. 

Because you’ll already be dreading the task, you don’t want to put any psychological barriers up between yourself and initiating the first steps to executing it. 

If you need to write a paper, make sure you have all the research gathered beforehand. If you’re tackling a huge gardening project, make sure all the tools you need are ready to go first thing. If you’re trying to the gym, lay your gym clothes out the night before. 

• Set a timer. 

Often the anticipation of a difficult task is more difficult than the task itself. Set a timer for twenty minutes and tell yourself you must execute the task until the timer goes off. If the timer goes off, you will be free to take a five-minute break. 

The Pomodoro Technique uses relatively short work bursts and breaks to help overcome the mental overhead of getting started. For more information on the Pomodoro Technique, check out our blog post (link below): 

Link to Pomodoro Technique Blog Post

• Set your priority tasks the night before. 

By doing so, this will put them at the forefront of your mind, and part of your brain will be considering them subconsciously while you sleep as well. Humans solve a lot of our problems while we’re sleeping.

Setting your priority tasks ahead of time takes advantage of theta brain waves, which allow you to solve creative problems more easily. 

If you reflect on tasks in a theta state, you may be more likely to come up with creative answers to make the work less difficult. Doing this can increase your overall productivity through outside-the-box shortcuts. 

• Make sure your difficult task is well-defined. 

A lot of decision fatigue comes from deciding how to do something, rather than what to do. This indecision keeps difficult executive actions that are complicated from being started without great resistance. 

If you are about to perform a difficult task, write the task down, and list all the things you need to do related to it. An abstract premise like “clean the house” can be daunting to the mind, but if you write fifty small household chores, you will feel less intimidated.

• Use the power of habit. 

Make a point to consistently keep track of your most important tasks, and consistently do the hardest things you’ve prioritized first. Willpower is a lot like a muscle power–the more you use it, the larger reserve of it you have to draw from.

One way to do this is to write your most important tasks in a small journal every night, and mark them off the next day. By keeping a record, you can use ritual to reinforce your motivation and make you more productive overall through consistent performance. 

• Stay away from social media and other distractions. 

Doing the hard thing first thing means doing it first thing. Do not pass GO; do not collect two hundred dollars. Straight to eating the frog for you. 

It is very easy to get drawn into browsing Facebook or Netflix, reading a blog, or reading the news rather than getting work done. Before you know it, you will have lost hours of productivity. A great way to block out distractions is to use an application like Focus to temporarily block you from accessing certain websites. Focus is a Mac application and is part of the great Setapp service. Setapp is a service that, for a very low monthly price, allows you to download and use over 150 Mac apps. For more information on Focus, click this link .

Do not execute any action before your hardest task for the best results, especially if it could be considered a leisure activity. Save that as a reward for when you complete your task. You’ll be working on completing it that much more quickly.  

Final Thoughts

Productivity is not about how many tasks you get done. Rather, it is about getting  valuable  tasks done as  efficiently  as possible. Everything else is unimportant. Longer tasks are typically more important than smaller tasks. 

Everybody has days where they are running around like a chicken with their head cut off, trying to do a dozen petty or inconsequential things at once. That feeling compounds when you realize you haven’t gotten anything valuable done. The key to true productivity isn’t the quantity of your work, but the quality of it. 

Assessing quality (especially the quality and value of your own work) requires more forethought and preparation. Research shows that working more productively, as opposed to simply working more, leads to higher levels of objective success.  

A decade of data reveals that heavy multitaskers have reduced memory

Solutions Architect

Jimmy McTiernan is the owner/author of The Productive Engineer, a website dedicated to helping people master productivity applications. Jimmy also is the creator of The Productive Engineer YouTube channel.

Similar Posts

When Should You Stop Studying for an Exam? Find the Answer Here

When should you stop studying before an exam? This article answers that question and provides tips on how to maximize your study time.

How To Make Myself Study – A Guide

Having a hard time getting yourself to study? Fear not, our guide will have you overcoming procrastination to get yourself to study consistently!

14 Amazing Notion Tips You Must Know!

Getting started with Notion and want to learn some time-saving, productivity-improving tips and tricks? You have come to the right place! This article provides a laundry list of tips and tricks to help you become a Notion ninja!

Task Management in Notion – A Complete Tutorial

Want to manage your tasks in Notion? You are in luck as this step-by-step tutorial with screenshots and video will teach you everything you need to know to build your own task management system in Notion.

Should I Study On The Weekends?

College is tough but should you study on the weekends? We have the answer for you as well as the reasons why.

The Must-Have Accessories for Your M1 Mac Mini

Apple’s M1 Mac mini is the perfect size for a desktop. It has sleek good looks, and packs powerful performance into a compact package. The problem with it though, is that you might not know what accessories to get for your M1 Mac mini! I’ve found 6 must-have accessories for your new M1 Mac mini…

Making educational experiences better for everyone.

Immersive learning for 25 languages

Marketplace for millions of educator-created resources

Fast, easy, reliable language certification

Fun educational games for kids

Comprehensive K-12 personalized learning

Trusted tutors for 300+ subjects

35,000+ worksheets, games, and lesson plans

Adaptive learning for English vocabulary

DEV Community

Posted on Nov 22, 2018

Should I do that test assignment?

Test assignments aren't really a good thing. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It might be one of the worst things that have happened to the hiring process.

The hiring process, in general, is quite broken in many senses. It's not really clear how to hire an engineer. New ways of testing our skills come and go. It shows us that it's nearly impossible to check interviewee skills in 30-90 minutes time frame.

I'm not going to talk about different puzzlers or tricky questions about the compiler, nor I'm going to cover any stress-interview practices here. Today is all about test assignments.

From a company's point of view

Hiring is a very expensive process and it's not very reliable either. Hours of interviews ain't free at all:

• An hour of one or two engineers conducting an interview
• 20-30 minutes to prepare before, and to compose results after an interview
• Recruiter's time

If you sum it up, you'll end up with a good number. And it's fair to expect the business to cut the costs. There are many ways to make it cheaper: phone screening and tests are very typical in the industry.

And there is one way which outstands the others. An assignment which is given to the candidate. Typically it's a piece of rather boring code to write with a possible trick in it. Sometimes you'd have to do it even before a phone screening phase as an extra filter. And most of the time you take it before an on-site round.

Often it's assumed that you would spend (should I say waste?) a few hours to finish up the assignment. That's an estimate made by the hiring manager or an engineer, and it's based on the assumption that you are familiar with every tech and every aspect of the task.

How long does it take to check your code? Well, it's about 15-20 minutes. Doesn't look fair, right?

That's correct. A company is trying to put the expenses on your name. They don't know how to evaluate your skills and your experience during a short interview, nor they know how to do that by phone, hence the need for you to spend hours in order to convince them simply to talk.

By the way, a person whose job is to evaluate your task is not going to give it too much effort. They have enough on their plate and they don't really like switching their attention. Imagine looking at the same code over an over again. Often they would quickly go through a checklist.

A candidate's point of view

Unless you're aiming for a top tech company like Google, Amazon or Facebook (they don't really give test assignments out, btw), you will not be dying to get a particular job. A vast majority of companies out there are doing similar things: storing the form's input in a DB. Well, sort of, but you know what I mean.

For the candidate test assignments are not very useful. On one hand, often they are similar to each other, on the other hand, they are hard to reuse. Every company is trying to make it a bit special. And you have to start a new project, configure all the parts, pick an ORM or set up a linter, over and over again.

Speaking of... How often do you start a new project at work? Like from the very beginning. You know, a git init and File->New Project . I've done so a couple dozen times doing various test assignments, and handfull times at work. Most of the time you either join an existing project or start one and keep working with it for a long period. So, honestly, it doesn't look like a relevant skill to me.

How much does your time cost?

Think about it. How many man-hours do you have on an overage day? Well, if you're young and single, you might even have all 24 of them. You can't keep it up this way for a long time, but you can make it for a day or two. However, it's a different story when you're older or have a family. You have like what? 12-14 hours a day. The remaining part of the day you do your chores and sleep.

You have to spend from eight to ten hours at work and commuting. That leaves you about four spare hours to use. So a hiring manager is going to take those four priceless hours. They want you to spend all your available resources so that they can save some time on their side.

How many resources does a company have? There are tens of engineers, managers and HR specialists there. If we speak about a small to middle size company. So they have hundreds of man-hours at their disposal. An extra 20-40 minutes to evaluate a candidate doesn't seem to be too crucial.

And that is an obvious asymmetry in the process. You have less time than the company, but you have to spend more resources upfront.

I don't really know what should we do about it. It's up to each individual. If you feel confident if you value your time and you're applying to an overage company you may refuse taking an assignment home. There are many ways to do so, you may ask them to pay for your time. You may offer them to take a look at your portfolio first. Show them your blog, your public projects if you have any. Let them download an app you built and try it first. Whatever works for you.

However, you might not be in a position to refuse. You can simply be running out of money or you might be talking to a dream job and you don't want to ruin it over the pride. I understand that.

Though I recommend you to publish the assignment somewhere. Let it be GitHub if we talk about code. Or Dribble or any other place which is popular among specialist in your field. Just be clear about it upfront: you are going to publish it because you own the result of your work. Unless they want to buy it out.

Hopefully one day you'll be offered with a similar assignment. Just send them a link back. It might work and could probably save you some time.

It can't be that bad, can it?

Well... Let's see. Do you remember that time when you've spend many hours, build a perfect thing, neat and polished? And you were hired right after that with no questions asked whatsoever. Ugh, that was just a dream.

Unfortunately, often a perfect result will simply be a reason to meet you in person. And that's where an actual interview will take its place. They would ask you some questions to make sure that you are the author. Sometimes it feels like an unnecessary step to go through. They could have given you a simple 15-20 minutes test over the phone.

Imagine you found that you don't like the office, the team or anything else about the company. You know, there are things with you only can find out during a face-to-face phase. And in order to get there, you've spent hours working on that test assignment. What a waste...

One more reason in favor of test assignments. They should equalize candidates who have time for a public activity like blogging or OSS contributions and people with family or those who cannot publish any code due to their work contract limitations. Honestly, I don't see how that helps. If you have no time to work on your pet project why would you have time to work on a test assignment?

What do you think about it? Do you often see a take-home assignment given before the actual on-site interview?

This text was originally published in Russian in my blog .

Top comments (17)

Templates let you quickly answer FAQs or store snippets for re-use.

• Location Helsinki
• Education CS MSc in Algorithms and ML + SWE degree
• Work Software Developer at RELEX Solutions
• Joined Oct 30, 2018

I took test assignments when I was looking for a junior position. It felt fare, since I hadn't have much on my CV or GitHub and a test assignment was a way for me to show what I'm worth. And sometimes I could judge the requirements and expectations for the position much better than from the job posting. So, win-win.

• Location India
• Work Principal Software Engineer
• Joined Sep 30, 2017

It varies a lot depending on the company. Many companies give an assignment requiring 5-10 hours of work and then never get back / or give more detailed feedback than "Sorry, not what we are looking for" or they reject anything that does not match a very specific pattern.

Ideally, the hiring company should do a 15-20 min pairing with the applicant to discuss what exactly they are looking for and what could be improved in the applicant's code.

• Work Cloud Engineering Lead
• Joined Feb 22, 2017

Exactly my point!

• Location Austin, TX, United States
• Work President at Deep Consulting Solutions
• Joined Dec 31, 2019

I fully appreciate the arguments outlined in this article, Anton - and in your comment, Raunak.

Here is an idea I would like to get feedback on. To me, it is vital to hire high quality engineers who will be able to fulfill projects and who I can count on - and I do think it is a good idea to test people for their abilities in a live situation where they are actually working in a professional capacity - not only to see the skills but also the work ethic of the candidate (most of my employees are remote so good work ethic is vital).

I have a third party professional code review company that provides me with test assignments and do a professional review of each candidate's test assignment work. I pay them considerably for each candidate review, and they in return they provide me with a 4 page detailed report on their work that I then share with the candidate - and upon which I make a decision on whether to hire the candidate and whether to pay him/her the salary asked.

These assignments are mini-projects essentially, and will require 1-3 days (depending on level) to complete - and I understand that for most candidates a small company asking them to do it might seem difficult.

Here is what I'm thinking. Why not offer them to do a test task, and provided that the task is completed on time (say within a week) and that the product delivered hits all the bullet-point requirements of the test task to a functioning quality, pay on completion a 3 day rate (pro-rated from salary asked figure).

What do you think of the idea?

This is an interesting approach indeed. I'm sorry, but I've never encountered such paid assignments neither as a candidate nor as a hiring manager/engineer.

The only opinion I have is purely assumption-based.

As long as you pay for it anyway (directly to the candidate or indirectly to the third party), it makes no difference for you.

However, consider an extra price of reviewing the assignment (if you're not going to pay, you'll have to justify it in a way that it's super clear). Also, you'll have to deal with extra paperwork both to sign the 'contract' and to transfer money to the individual (in some cases you could avoid that by using Amazon gift cards or something similar). Keep in mind that they might not have a legal entity, and it might make their tax paperwork more complicated.

I'm thinking that if you're ready to go down this path, why not making an extra step and offering people a short-term trial contract to work on the specific part of the project? It depends on the business you run and a type of project/data, of course.

• Email [email protected]
• Location Time Vortex
• Pronouns he/him
• Work Director of Community at OWASP Foundation
• Joined Jan 31, 2017

As someone with plenty of experience on both sides of the table, I can't see this article as anything but misguided.

I indeed use a single (and original) take-home coding challenge instead of whiteboarding during an interview. Let's look at it this way...

If you ever come across an interview process for a coding position where the candidates never need to code as part of the hiring process... run .

A take-home coding challenge has less pressure attached. Would you rather do in 20 minutes, with a bunch of interviewers staring at you, or would you rather do it at your own pace, in your own environment, where you can give it your best?

Would you rather work on yet another version of "fizz buzz" during the interview, or tackle something legitimately interesting and unique that (seriously, according to all my candidates) takes no more than an hour or two?

Actual field experience has proven: take-home coding challenges are one of the best , fairest, and most objective means of evaluating the technical skills of a candidate. Everyone can talk the talk, but you must have a way of evaluating who can actually do the work.

(Yes, we have simple-but-effective ways of making sure the person really wrote the code.)

Side note: one also research jobs, applies for jobs, and interviews for jobs on their own time. It isn't unfair for one to do a coding challenge on one's own time too. If someone really doesn't want to bother, then that's fine - there are plenty of people who care enough about the position enough to use a couple hours of their Minecraft time to complete a coding challenge. (For cryin' out loud, we have over two dozen sites where people complete coding challenges for FUN.)

I see a lot of articles complaining about the hiring process, but honestly, until one has actually interviewed dozens of candidates, made a few mistakes in the process, and seen how one's hiring choices panned out, one doesn't have much basis to make as definitive statements as found in many articles like this.

Actually, if we were to take all the "complaining about the hiring process" articles at face value, we'd be hiring the first Joe Bloggs who applied for the position, and giving gift cards as consolation prizes to everyone else who didn't get the job (seriously, that WAS one article's suggestion).

The hiring system as a whole can certainly be improved, but a lot of the unpleasantness is due to our having to screen for people who talk big, but don't have the skills to match. They show up in every batch of candidates, for every job posted, every time. (Yes, there are people with no coding skills whatsoever who apply for senior development positions.)

Same thing here, I've been an interviewee and an invervieer many times in the past. As much as I like seeing a sample of candidate's code, I disagree that this is a fair thing to do. It's ok to give an assignment on a later step in the process, but it's never a good option to give it as an initial filter.

Well, we may just be coming from different backgrounds, then. I've learned the hard way, it is a critical part of the interview process. Granted, this is after I phone interview them, but I will never hire without it. In fact, no successful hiring manager I've ever known will; the ones that skip it invariably wind up with extensive mishires.

• Joined Jan 27, 2018

I have to call bullshit on this.

1) I worked at places where they did not have a coding challenge, live nor take home. Colleagues were competent and it was a great job.

2) I (and many others) would rather do it in 20 minutes with interviewers staring at me, rather than spend hours of my personal time working on a throw away project for free. This way, even if I fail the interview, I'm only out 20 minutes vs hours. I'd rather go to church service than do that.

3) I like working on interesting things, but I don't like working for free. This argument is the same as saying developers should always be coding, even in their free time, for the passion of it. And that's what take home assignments are. It's a way to offload the expense of hiring onto the candidate. It's no different than unpaid labor.

If you can't weed out majority of unqualified candidates (yes, some will get through, but some will also get through even if you have a take home test) by just having a chat about software development with them, then the problem is with the employer, not the interviewee.

I'll have to counter your points, unfortunately.

1) Every company will wind up with some decent programmers, no matter what hiring processes they have. That doesn't mean that doesn't matter. The perspective of one employee within the scope of his team doesn't correlate with the overall reality in the development field. It doesn't make your experience invalid , but your experience alone does not invalidate the broader scope. Chances are, you seldom encounter the mis-hires. (And yes, there are many developers I've spoken with who wind up working with people in development positions who actually can't code.)

2) And hiring managers would rather not have to waste 20 minutes taking to yet another someone who can't code to save their life. You'd be amazed at just how many hundreds of hours get wasted on that.

3) No one likes working for free, but you're not being asked to. A coding challenge yields no direct profits for the company. This has nothing to do with the errant "developers should always be coding" philosophy.

4) Your statement about how a decent hiring manager should be capable of weeding out candidates by "just having a chat" shows you have clearly never done hiring in any meaningful capacity. Any job looks easy to the one who isn't doing it.

Maybe you still don't agree, but I'm not just talking from personal experience; I've spoken to many hiring managers and software developers about this topic for years, and these have been common threads.

• Joined Mar 8, 2017

I'm torn on this. As a junior, unemployed, I liked take-home assignments. I had the time, and it was an opportunity to show my skills. However, when I was applying while working, I had exactly the problem you described. Three coding challenges in a month, on top of my regular responsibilities and other job hunting tasks, nearly burned me out.

I still prefer coding challenges to timed tests or algorithm problems (especially for a front-end role - it makes me question the company's judgment when their test has so little relation to the work). But it was hard enough for me to make time, and many people have a lot more hurdles than me.

No single solution works for everyone, so I think the only good answer is for a company to offer an option. Those with more experience or a great portfolio shouldn't have to build yet another to-do list app when they already can demonstrate their value in other ways. But that's harder to quantify into metrics, and opens the process up to more unconscious bias. It's hard to do it well!

Totally agree, it's all about balance. However, I still believe that nobody should receive a take-home assignment at the beginning of the process. This is not a fair initial filter, but it might be ok when both sides are ready to invest extra time.

• Location Madrid
• Education Telecommunications Engineer
• Work CTO at WITH Madrid
• Joined Feb 16, 2017

You are making a lot of assumptions here... Really a lot.

At some point the company needs to know what you're worth and you can't just know that by talking to the person for one hour.

To me assignments are useful when the process is well advanced and that you need to lift a doubt.

I don't think I'm assuming too much here. If they need to see some code it's ok. I prefer to see the candidate's code too. However, I think it's not fair to ask a candidate to invest their time before both sides are sure that they are interested in each other.

• Pronouns He/Him
• Joined May 3, 2019

What do you do when given an assignment with a skill you dont have. Note: You made it clear in the initial interview call you have no practical knowledge of the skill and also it was not in your resume but they go ahead to give you an assignment having 50% of the skill you dont have and was given 6-8 hours to finish. Do you do the interview assignment or not?

Hi Eddie. Good question, thanks!

When you're missing skill to complete the assignment and you made it clear for the company then I think what they are looking for is for you to demonstrate that you're capable of learning that skill on your own in a short time.

6-8 hours deadline is very tough in my opinion, but what can you do about it, eh? Those are the rules of the game, you have to follow them I'm afraid.

Would I do that? If I wanted the job I would do my best to complete it. Even if I missed a deadline I'll send it back anyway. I would tell them, that I had to learn a few things first of course. If I were an interviewer I'd respect that attitude.

Btw, if you learned something new while working on the assignment, it's not a bad assignment after all. It's better than simply wasting your time on making yet another standard task, right?

Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.

Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink .

Hide child comments as well

For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse

Finalists of the Global Gamers Challenge - Flutter News 2024 #14 ʚїɞ

Luciano Jung - Apr 8

Are Morning Routines Overrated?

dev.to staff - Apr 24

Layoffs in Tech & How To Workaround it

KWAN - Apr 17

My First Month As A Software Engineer

Aglili Selorm Cecil - May 5

We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.

I prefer simple work-related assignments. Completely Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Completely Agree The best leaders rely on their intuition. Completely Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Completely Agree I expect to be recognized for good work. Completely Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Completely Agree