SIROC

Vorstellungsgespräche

Verbesserungsvorschläge

I went through two interviews and completed an unpaid design exercise. Afterward, the company confirmed that the quality of my work and design thinking matched what they were looking for. However, I was rejected because my workflow was not sufficiently “code-first”: they wanted the codebase to be the source of truth, with AI agents producing designs directly in code.

This expectation was not clearly communicated. The job description emphasized Figma expertise, the assignment allowed candidates to use any tool, and I had already explained my Figma-based, AI-supported workflow during the first interview. The company later acknowledged that this requirement should have been made clearer from the beginning.

Another concern was the contractor arrangement. The company expected a full-time commitment of around 40 hours per week and ongoing participation as part of the internal team, but the agreement would be with a Cyprus-based company on a self-employed contractor basis. This means that taxes, social contributions, insurance, and related legal responsibilities remain with the contractor, despite the role functioning similarly to regular full-time employment.

The company could improve the process by:

- Clearly presenting the position as an AI-first or Design Engineer role.
- Confirming the candidate’s workflow before assigning unpaid work.
- Explaining the contractor model and its implications more transparently.
- Replacing unpaid take-home assignments with a short live session or a paid exercise.

The decisive reason for the rejection could have been identified before the assignment. As a result, the process felt like an unnecessary investment of the candidate’s time.