Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / How a Trial Project Beat the Traditional Interview
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's a phrase that keeps coming up in hiring circles lately: 'trial project.' Not a take-home assignment, not a case study — an actual paid, week-long project that mirrors the real job. And one mid-sized software firm I was reading about cut its regrettable attrition rate by 35 percent after making it the final step in every hire. Luna: Thirty-five percent is a big deal. But how do you even design something like that without scaring off good candidates or turning it into free labor? Lucas: That's the question, right? The firm I'm talking about — they're a SaaS company, about 200 employees, they were struggling with people who looked great on paper and then fizzled out within the first six months. So they decided the last round of interviews would be replaced with a real project, something the candidate would actually work on if they got the job. Luna: So the candidate gets to see the actual work, and the company gets to see how they perform. It's like a two-way audition. Lucas: Exactly. And the key was that it was paid. They paid a flat rate — I think it was five hundred dollars for the week, which for them was a no-brainer compared to the cost of a bad hire. And it wasn't some generic task, it was a real problem the team was facing. For the engineering role, it was a bug fix and a feature add. For marketing, it was building a campaign brief for a new product launch. Luna: So it's not just a test of skills — it's a test of how they fit with the team, how they communicate, how they handle feedback. That's the stuff you can't get from a behavioral question. Lucas: Right. And the feedback loop was built in. The candidate presented their work to the team at the end of the week, and the team evaluated them on a rubric — skills, collaboration, adaptability, communication. They scored them on a scale of one to five, and the hiring manager made the final call. Luna: That sounds like a lot of manager time. Did they find it was worth it? Lucas: The CEO told me that the first time they did it, the hiring manager was skeptical — it was a whole week of their calendar, plus the candidate's. But after the first one, he was converted. He said it was the best signal he'd ever gotten about a candidate, because you could see how they actually work, not just how they talk about work. Luna: So what was the result beyond the attrition number? Did they also see a change in the quality of hires or the time to productivity? Lucas: They did. The time to full productivity dropped by about two weeks on average, because new hires already knew the codebase, the tools, the team dynamics. And their one-year retention rate went up by 20 percent. But here's the catch — they also saw a drop in the number of candidates willing to go through the process. Some people just don't want to spend a week on a project, even if it's paid. Luna: So you're filtering out people who aren't that committed or who have other offers. Is that a bad thing? Lucas: I'd argue no. If someone isn't willing to invest a week to prove they're the right fit, they're probably not the right fit. But you also have to be careful about who you're excluding — for example, people with full-time jobs or caregiving responsibilities who can't take a week off. That's a real equity concern. Luna: That's a fair point. How did they handle that? Did they offer flexibility, like evenings and weekends? Lucas: They did. They made it a week-long window, but the candidate could work on it whenever they wanted, as long as they checked in daily. And they had an option to extend it to two weeks if needed. They also encouraged remote collaboration, so it wasn't a rigid nine-to-five thing. That helped. Luna: So the trial project is a real commitment, but it's also a sign that the company cares about getting it right. It's a two-way street. Lucas: And that's the bigger picture here. We're seeing a shift away from the traditional multi-round interview gauntlet, which is stressful and often doesn't predict performance. The trial project is a kind of work sample test, but on steroids. It's a realistic job preview for the candidate and a skills assessment for the employer. Luna: I remember we talked about work sample tests in an earlier episode, but this is much more immersive. It's not just a discrete task — it's a mini-job. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why it works. The research on hiring shows that work samples are one of the best predictors of job performance, with a validity coefficient of around 0.5, which is higher than structured interviews. But most companies only use them as a small component, like a case study for a consulting role. What this firm did was make it the core of the final round. Luna: So what about the legal and ethical side? If you're paying candidates, does that make them employees? Are there any pitfalls? Lucas: Good question. If you pay a flat fee and the candidate isn't performing an ongoing service, it's generally considered an independent contractor arrangement, not employment. But you have to be careful about minimum wage laws and overtime. The safest approach is to pay well above minimum wage, like this firm did, and to treat it as a freelance contract. Also, you have to be consistent — if you pay one candidate, you have to pay all candidates for the same role. Luna: And you have to make sure the project is designed so that it doesn't inadvertently discriminate against protected groups. Like if the project requires specific hours or physical presence, that could be a problem. Lucas: Right. So you need to offer reasonable accommodations and make sure the evaluation criteria are job-related and consistently applied. This firm used a standardized rubric, which helped, and they trained their hiring managers on how to evaluate the projects without bias. Luna: It sounds like a lot of upfront work. Is this something that only works for certain industries or roles? Like, could you do a trial project for a receptionist or a warehouse worker? Lucas: You can adapt it. For a receptionist, you might have them handle a mock phone queue and greet visitors for a day. For a warehouse worker, you could have them pick and pack orders for a shift. The key is to make it representative of the day-to-day work, and to pay for the time. It doesn't have to be a week — it can be a day or even a few hours, depending on the complexity of the job. Luna: So it's more about the philosophy than the length. The idea is to see real skills in action, not just how someone answers questions about hypothetical situations. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why I think this is such a powerful trend. The traditional interview is really bad at predicting success, but we keep using it because it's convenient and we're used to it. A trial project forces both sides to be honest about what the job actually entails and whether the person can do it. Luna: And it's also a great way for the candidate to assess the company. They get to see the team, the culture, the tools, and the challenges. If the work is boring or chaotic, they'll know before they sign on. That's valuable for everyone. Lucas: Absolutely. And that goes back to something we talk about a lot on this show — the cost of a bad hire is not just the salary, it's the time, the team morale, the missed opportunities. Spending a week on a trial project is a tiny fraction of that. Luna: So do you think trial projects will become the norm, or is it more of a niche practice for tech and creative fields? Lucas: I think it's going to expand, but slowly. The biggest barrier is the time commitment for hiring managers, and the fear that you might scare off candidates. But as more companies share their success stories, and as candidates start expecting it, I think we'll see it become more common in fields where the work can be done remotely or on a flexible schedule. Luna: And what about the candidates? How do they feel about it? I'd love to hear a success story from the candidate's perspective. Lucas: Actually, one candidate I read about said it was the best interview experience she'd ever had. She was a product manager, and she got to spend a week working with the engineering and design teams on a real feature. She said she learned more about the company in that week than she would have in ten interviews. And she got paid five hundred dollars for it, which she said was a nice bonus, but the real value was that she knew she could do the job and that she liked the team. Luna: That's a powerful endorsement. It's like a mutual courtship where both sides are trying to impress each other, but in a real way, not a performance. Lucas: And that's the beauty of it. When you put someone in a real work situation, the mask comes off. You see how they handle feedback, how they manage their time, how they ask for help. And the candidate sees if the company walks the talk. It's a matchmaking process that actually works. Luna: So if I'm a hiring manager listening to this and I want to try it, where do I start? What's the first step? Lucas: Start small. Pick one role that's critical to your business and where you've had bad hires in the past. Design a project that's a realistic piece of work, not a trick question. Set a fair price for the time, and decide on your evaluation criteria beforehand. Then test it with a few candidates and iterate. You don't have to change your whole process overnight. Luna: And make sure to get feedback from the candidates who went through it. They'll tell you what worked and what didn't. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the same principle we apply to any process improvement. Listen to the people you're trying to attract and retain. If they say the trial project was too long, adjust it. If they say it was the best part of the process, lean into it. Luna: So, we've talked about the trial project as a way to assess skills, but I wonder if it also changes the power dynamic. The candidate is doing something for you, so they're not in a purely submissive interview posture. That could make for a more authentic interaction. Lucas: That's a really astute observation, Luna. In a traditional interview, the interviewer holds all the cards, and the candidate is trying to perform. In a trial project, the candidate is contributing from the get-go. That shifts the relationship from one of judgment to one of collaboration. And that can be a much more honest foundation for a working relationship. Luna: And I think that's also why it leads to better retention. You're not just selling the candidate on the role; they've already experienced it. So there are no surprises on day one. The day one feeling of a new job is usually a mix of excitement and confusion. With a trial project, they've already navigated that confusion, so they can hit the ground running. Lucas: And that's the ultimate goal, right? Not just to fill a seat, but to find the right person who's going to thrive and stay. The trial project might be the closest thing we have to a crystal ball for hiring. Luna: Well, if you're thinking about trying this, I'd say go for it. Just be prepared to put in the work upfront, and to listen to feedback from candidates and your team. Lucas: And remember, if today's conversation has given you a new idea to try, that's exactly why we do this. If it's made a difference to you, and you want to keep these conversations going, a small token goes a long way to keep it ad-free and independent. You can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. No pressure, just a thought. Luna: Yeah, and we're always grateful for the support. It really helps us keep the show going and bring you more stories like this. Lucas: So, what do you think? Is the trial project the future of hiring, or is it just a fad for tech companies? I'd love to hear from our listeners. You can find us on social media, and we'll be back next week with another story. Luna: And if you've tried a trial project at your company, let us know how it went. We might feature your story in a future episode.