The UX Design hiring process is broken… And it’s killing our creativity
Before we start, I want to set the stage. I’ve been through design processes both pre-COVID and during the recent market craziness. That being said, my hot take is this: The UX/Product Design hiring process is a mess. It’s not just a little broken, but it is also fundamentally flawed, doing a disservice to both candidates and companies. We’ve become so focused on finding the “perfect unicorn” designer (someone skilled at everything) that we’ve created a gauntlet of interviews that filters out the very things we say we want: creativity and innovation.
But first, let’s talk about what creativity is. It’s not just about making things look pretty, that’s a huge misconception. Creativity, whether you’re a designer, a software engineer, or a product manager, is about how you solve a problem. Creativity is about thinking outside the box, seeing connections others miss, and coming up with unique solutions. In that sense, a designer is no more or less “creative” than an engineer. We’re all problem-solvers.
So why, then, does the design hiring process feel like it’s specifically designed to stifle that creativity?
The gauntlet of inefficiency
The typical design interview process is a marathon. It usually looks something like this:
- CV and portfolio review: These days, this is likely reviewed by an AI that gives you a score. Is it a person? Maybe. Maybe not.
- Recruiter call: Often, this person is just looking for “beautiful UIs,” not understanding the real depth of the work.
- Hiring manager: First vibe check: A crucial first meeting to see if you’re a good cultural fit.
- Project presentation: You walk through a past project to show your thought process.
- The challenge: A take-home or live challenge to demonstrate your problem-solving skills.
- Cultural fit round: Another chat with the team to see if you gel.
- Hiring Manager: Final round: The last chat before (hopefully) an offer.
Do you see a problem here? Steps 4 and 5, the project presentation and the challenge. Why do we need both? It used to be one or the other. We used to evaluate a candidate’s ability to solve problems. Now, it feels like we’re just trying to see if they can read minds and deliver the exact process and result that is expected.
And if a designer does manage to do that (read the mind thing), is that really a good thing? It means they’re not bringing a new perspective. They’re just mirroring what they think you want. That narrows the team’s thinking and, ultimately, kills innovation.
The problem with presentations and visuals
I want to dig into the project presentation a bit more. I know and understand that it’s a great way to understand a candidate’s thought process. But let’s remember something important: even when a designer leads a project from start to finish, there are countless other factors at play. Decisions are made because of budget constraints, technical limitations, business bureaucracy, and ever-changing roadmaps. To judge a designer’s process without acknowledging these realities is naive at best.
And then there are the visuals. Why do we put so much weight on a designer’s previous visual work? If your company already has a defined brand and a design system in place, the visuals should be the least of your worries. Your internal rules and component libraries dictate how screens should be built.
Discarding a candidate because you don’t like the UIs in their portfolio is a HUGE mistake. There’s a 99.9% chance those visuals were created following the rules and brand guidelines of their previous company. You’re judging them on a style they didn’t even invent!
The human cost
This broken process takes a real toll on candidates. The pressure to “read people’s minds” and deliver a perfect, polished project in a short amount of time is exhausting. It leads to burnout and self-doubt, making people question their skills and value. We are creating an environment of stress and anxiety, when what we should be doing is fostering a positive experience that brings out a candidate’s best work.
The cost to companies
And what’s the cost for companies? (yes, there’s a cost for them too) Simple. You’re missing out on incredible talent. By following a rigid, cookie-cutter process, you’re not evaluating a person’s ability to think, collaborate, and solve problems; you’re evaluating their ability to play a game. You end up building homogeneous teams that lack diverse perspectives and thought processes. That kills innovation faster than anything else. You’re hiring a team of people who all think the same way, and that’s a recipe for stagnation.
A better way forward
So, what’s the solution? I don’t have an answer to that, as it is more complex than just giving a simple solution, never the less, I do think we need to shift our focus. The perfect candidate isn’t the one with the most impressive portfolio or the one who flawlessly completes a cookie-cutter design challenge. The perfect candidate is a problem-solver who can think critically, adapt to new constraints, and collaborate effectively.
What if we replaced the project presentation and challenge with a single, well-structured, collaborative session? Instead of asking a candidate to solve a take-home problem in isolation, let’s have a live working session. This could be a whiteboard challenge on a hypothetical scenario or a case study discussion where the candidate walks the team through a problem they’ve solved before, and we workshop it together. This approach will let us see how they think, communicate, and collaborate in a natural setting. We will get a true sense of their skills, not just their ability to follow a formula.
We need to stop looking for mind readers and start looking for brilliant thinkers.
