Create opportunities with correct candidate assessments

Recruitment assessments can make both candidates and hiring managers nervous — and for good reason.

At their best, they help employers see how someone will actually show up at work. At their worst, they become awkward, irrelevant or, in rare cases, deeply inappropriate.

That tension is back in the spotlight after the recent class-action lawsuit involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where thousands of past and present employees allege they were subjected to improper and invasive medical examinations as part of mandatory recruitment screening. The case is a stark reminder just because something is labelled an “assessment” does not make it reasonable, ethical or defensible.

Most employers are not running medical exams or physical testing at that level, but the underlying question applies to everyone involved in hiring.

How far is too far and how do you meaningfully assess whether someone can do a job without crossing boundaries or relying on outdated methods that tell you very little?

On the lighter end of the assessment spectrum is a story that has circulated in HR circles for years.

A candidate arrives for an interview, only to be met by an apologetic interviewer who explains they are short-handed and asks if the candidate can help move a couch into the next room before they sit down. The candidate agrees.

As it turns out, the couch-moving is the interview.

How does the person react to an unexpected request? Do they complain or pitch in? Can they problem-solve when the couch gets stuck in the doorway? Can they communicate while physically occupied? Can they remain pleasant under mild stress?

It is a memorable example because it reveals something real and it does so without trickery or humiliation.

The most important thing to remember when assessing candidates is to ensure the criteria is relevant and respectful. Good assessments are closely tied to the actual job and conducted in a way that preserves dignity, consent and fairness.

One of the biggest mistakes organizations make is defaulting to the sit-down interview as the gold standard, regardless of the role.

If the job involves eight hours on your feet, constant interaction with the public, problem-solving on the fly or working outdoors in unpredictable conditions, it is reasonable to ask whether a polished boardroom conversation is really the best predictor of success. For many roles, it is not.

Thinking outside the box does not mean thinking without guardrails. It means starting with the question: what does success actually look like in this job, day to day? From there, assessments can be designed to mirror reality in ways that are both informative and fair.

For a customer-facing role, a short, structured role-play might be far more telling than a traditional interview question about conflict resolution. Observing how someone responds to a frustrated customer, listens actively and adapts their tone provides insight no rehearsed answer ever could.

For a maintenance or trades role, asking a candidate to walk through how they would diagnose a common issue, using photos or equipment manuals, can demonstrate practical thinking without requiring them to perform unpaid labour.

For leadership roles, presenting a realistic scenario involving competing priorities and asking the candidate to talk through their decision-making process often reveals values, judgment and emotional intelligence more clearly than a list of accomplishments.

Cultural fit is often cited as a reason for unconventional assessments, but it is also where employers must tread carefully.

Culture should never be shorthand for “someone like us.” Instead, assessments should focus on behaviours and values that genuinely matter. If collaboration is critical, how does the person engage with others during a group exercise? If accountability is central, how do they talk about past mistakes? If adaptability is essential, how do they respond when information changes mid-task?

Humour can play a role here as well. Light, human moments often reveal more than high-stakes questioning.

An informal conversation while walking through the workspace or a chance to observe how a candidate interacts with reception staff, can provide clues about respect and self-awareness formal interviews sometimes miss.

A frequent concern from employers is how much they can reasonably ask candidates to do without paying them. This is an important consideration, particularly as candidates become more vocal about exploitative hiring practices.

The general rule is assessments should be short, clearly tied to the role and not produce work the organization can actually use.

Asking someone to complete a brief writing sample that demonstrates their style is very different from asking them to draft a full communications plan that will later be implemented. Asking a candidate to demonstrate how they would approach a task is different from asking them to complete that task for real.

Transparency matters. Candidates should know an assessment is part of the selection process, what it involves, how long it will take and how it will be evaluated.

Surprises may make for good stories, but they do not always make for good hiring practices. Consent is not just a legal concept; it is a trust-building one.

The RCMP lawsuit underscores what happens when assessments lose sight of proportionality and respect.

Even in less extreme cases, poorly designed assessments can deter strong candidates, damage an employer’s reputation and expose organizations to legal risk.

On the flip side, thoughtful, role-specific assessments can enhance the candidate experience, reduce bias and lead to better hiring decisions.

It is also worth remembering assessments work both ways.

Candidates are assessing the organization just as much as the organization is assessing them. A process that feels arbitrary, invasive or disconnected from reality sends a message about how the employer operates. A process that feels fair, relevant and human sends a very different one.

Recruitment does not need to be stiff to be serious, nor creative to the point of absurdity. The sweet spot lies in assessments that reflect the real work, respect the individual and provide meaningful insight into how someone will show up on an ordinary Tuesday, not just how they perform in an interview chair.

If the job never involves sitting behind a desk answering questions, maybe the interview should not either. And if an assessment leaves someone feeling confused, embarrassed or violated, it is almost certainly the wrong one.

Good hiring is not about catching people out. It is about creating opportunities for them to show you who they really are, couch-carrying optional.

Tory McNally, CPHR, BSc., vice-president,

professional services at TIPI Legacy HR+

(formerly Legacy Bowes), is a human resource

consultant, strategic thinker and problem solver.

She can be reached at tmcnally@tipipartners.com.