I can see this being misinterperted badly in the field of software engineering (it doesn't seem specific to software) as it says work sample tests are best, yet most software is large scale, and takes time to develop and ought to involve planning, architecture, coding, technology selection, testing. So most "sample work" for an interview will actually be nothing like that but a short rushed version that is supposed to emulate it in some way.
"but for many jobs there are too many variables involved day‑to‑day to allow the construction of a representative work sample. All our technical hires, whether in engineering or product management, go through a work sample test of sorts, where they are asked to solve engineering problems during the interview."
Plus a number of other things according to the article.
Sounds like they are agreeing with what I said (at least to some degree), but still asking for something anyway.
It won't work better if you give candidates so many tasks that they think, "why bother?" and go for another easier job application process instead. People have other commitments, and we are often told there is a shortage of developers.
I have told potential employees as much after they asked for a sample of my work (which I had made available for that purpose), and they after that, they still wanted a three hour exercise done before I had even spoken to anyone.
In fact I am about to start a new job in the new year, I had a few interviews, and a couple of jobs that interested me sufficiently. One involved a three hour test, the other asked for a sample for my work.
Guess which one I took?
Guess which one the interviewer said they were struggling to find candidates?
A work sample test for a developer position might be: Here is the name of a niche board game. Over the next day, find the manual. Tomorrow, come in and play a round with me.
Half of what developers do is master arcane rules from obscure texts. Is this not, in fact, a work sample?