The Exploitation Built Into the Nonprofit Job Search

I’m not doing any more “hiring exercises” without compensation.

As I’m nearing my seventh month of being unemployed, I’ve noticed a pattern: more and more organizations are asking candidates to complete “hiring exercises” as part of the interview process.

At first, I didn’t think much of it. It seemed reasonable; organizations want to ensure they’re choosing the right candidate, and what better way to assess someone than to see how they might approach the actual work?

But after spending hours creating communications plans, marketing strategies, social media graphics, email copy, press outreach plans, and anything else you can think of under the comms umbrella, just to be the runner-up (or worse, completely ghosted) without any sort of payment for my time, I’m done.

A 10-Hour Exercise For…Nothing

Earlier this year, I applied to an organization working on prison reform. As part of the final stage, I was asked to complete a three-part hiring exercise:

1. Draft a comprehensive social media strategy to help the org double its Instagram, Twitter/X, and Facebook followers in 6–8 months, including key actions, content types, and engagement tactics.

2. Design two graphics and write accompanying copy—one highlighting the organization’s direct services, and one mobilizing audiences to contact legislators about upcoming policy decisions.

3. Write a 150–200-word email encouraging members, primarily directly impacted by the carceral system, to attend the organization’s upcoming advocacy day, with thoughtful attention to the current political climate.

I spent at least 10 hours completing that assignment. And do you know what happened next?

I got ghosted.

No feedback. No follow-up. Just silence. My time was wasted, and my ideas were likely filed away for later use. It left me feeling disposable, like a free consultant rather than a serious candidate.

The Irony of Injustice in the Nonprofit Sector

The job search in any field is already exhausting with navigating uncertainty, rejection, and the emotional toll of constantly having to prove your worth. But when you’re asked to give away hours of skilled labor, unpaid, by organizations whose missions are supposedly rooted in equity and justice? That adds another bitter layer of irony.

An equity-driven mission means nothing if your hiring practices reinforce inequity.

I’ve spent hours on end preparing for multiple rounds of interviews and complex hiring exercises, only to be left feeling like I’ve been taken advantage of. No compensation (except once. Thank you, Working Assumptions). No closure (usually). No respect for my time. And I know I’m far from alone. This isn’t an isolated experience. It’s a growing, normalized pattern across the nonprofit world.

The sector calls it a “standard part of the hiring process.” I call it exploitation.

Hiring is hard, but so is job searching.

I understand that hiring is a significant investment of time, money, and energy. You want to find the right person. But if your process includes time-consuming assignments, the least you can do is compensate candidates for their labor.

The excuse I often hear is: “We don’t have it in the budget.”

If your organization can’t at least offer a $100 honorarium to pay your top candidates for a lengthy assignment, you shouldn’t be asking for one. That’s it, that’s all. If your values don’t show up in your hiring practices, they’re just words that carry no weight. Committing to equity means refusing to ask (unemployed) people to give away free labor.

Ethical Hiring Starts With Respect

The nonprofit sector should be a model for ethical hiring, not just once people are on payroll, but from the moment they apply. That includes:

• compensating candidates for hiring exercises,

• streamlining interview processes,

• communicating transparently with applicants, and

• valuing people’s time, labor, and dignity at every stage.

Don’t Just Say You’re Equitable, Be Equitable

If you’re hiring and can’t offer compensation for a time-intensive assignment, consider these alternative approaches instead:

1. Rather than asking for deliverables, ask candidates how they’d approach specific challenges during the interview. For example: “How do you prioritize completing tasks when everything feels urgent?” or “If you were joining a team with unclear workflows or overlapping responsibilities, how would you begin to bring clarity?”

2. Ask for 1–2 examples of relevant work and talk through the candidate’s thought process. This gives insight into their strategic thinking without asking for new, unpaid labor.

3. Dedicate part of the interview to a live “working session” where candidates can verbally walk through how they’d approach a specific task. No deck, no writing, just conversation.

These approaches respect candidates’ time and expertise without demanding labor without compensation.

We must stop treating the hiring process as simply filtering people out and start seeing it as a chance for those who care deeply about the work to step into their potential, show up fully, and be respected. Candidates are not machines. They are people. And for many, this isn’t just about the next job. It’s about their livelihood, stability, and their investment in your mission. That should never be taken lightly.

As an act of self-preservation, self-care, and self-respect, I’ve made a decision: I’m not doing any more hiring exercises without compensation. If my portfolio and experience aren’t enough, that’s okay, but I won’t allow myself to be exploited in the hiring process any longer.

We deserve better. I demand better. And it starts with how I’m met at the door, by seeing what I bring to the table without expecting me to give it away for free.

---

Want to dig deeper? Here are some resources.

• ProInspire’s Self to Systems: Leading for Race Equity Impact offers a leadership model to support individuals and organizations in creating racially equitable experiences and outcomes within the social sector.

• Community-Centric Fundraising discusses the importance of paying candidates for interviews and outlines equitable hiring practices.

• The Management Center’s Hiring Toolkit provides tools and templates for equitable hiring, including an Interview Question Toolkit to assess candidates without requiring unpaid labor.

• Harvard Business Review’s research highlights how women leaders took on more invisible work during the pandemic, often without recognition or reward.

• Vu Le’s critique in Nonprofit AF addresses the unethical practice of asking candidates for unpaid assignments during the hiring process.

  ---