Interview process is misaligned, outdated, and disrespectful of candidates’ time I went through an interview process that quickly revealed serious issues with how this company evaluates talent. After an initial conversation that seemed promising, I was sent a “technical assessment” whose scope was wildly disproportionate to the stage of the process and the role itself. The assignment required a significant amount of hands-on, operational work—effectively simulating real deliverables that the company could use regardless of whether the candidate advanced. This work was unpaid and poorly justified. Even if compensation were offered, the time investment expected would still be unreasonable for a hiring exercise. More importantly, the assessment failed to reflect how success in the role would actually be measured. Instead of using realistic, high-signal methods such as mock calls, structured scenarios, or candidate-ranking exercises, the process relied on a burdensome and outdated test that says little about real-world performance. The recruiter I spoke with was professional and personable, but the overall process suggests a lack of maturity in hiring design and weak internal standards. If the company’s goal is to attract experienced professionals, this approach is likely to deter strong candidates rather than identify them. Advice to leadership: Reevaluate your interview framework. Bar-raiser interviews and practical, time-bound scenarios are far more effective—and respectful—than unpaid, high-effort assignments that provide low signal.