How to Interview Product Designers With Respect and Intention

For many organizations, the process of hiring a product designer feels less like a thoughtful system and more like a series of painful, disconnected events. This brokenness is a shared experience, felt acutely by everyone involved. It is a problem that transcends simple inefficiency; it touches on matters of professional respect, emotional well-being, and fundamental human decency.

The Shared Pain of a Flawed System

For the interviewers, the process can be a source of deep insecurity. Without a clear, structured framework, they are left to improvise, asking questions they hope will reveal something meaningful. This lack of structure breeds a lack of confidence, turning what should be an exciting opportunity to meet new talent into a stressful performance of their own.

For the candidates, the experience is often far worse. They navigate a gauntlet of repetitive recruiter calls that lead nowhere, vague feedback, and interview loops that feel designed to test their endurance rather than their talent.¹ Many feel like they are being asked to perform tricks like a pony, rather than engage in a serious conversation about their craft and potential. The process can feel dehumanizing, leaving them with the distinct impression that the company does not truly see them or value their time.²

And for the business, the consequences are severe. A poorly structured interview process is a direct assault on the company’s reputation. Disgruntled candidates share their negative experiences on platforms like Glassdoor, poisoning the well for future talent.⁴ The internal talent acquisition team becomes frustrated and demoralized, forced to work harder to overcome the friction of a broken system.⁴ Most critically, the company loses out on the very people it needs most. Top candidates, who almost always have multiple opportunities, will drop out of a lengthy, disrespectful process and accept offers from competitors who treat them better.⁴ That loss is not temporary; a candidate who has a bad experience may never consider the company again.

The advice that follows is born from experience within some of the world’s most rigorous and respected hiring environments, places that understood a fundamental truth: the interview process is not a chore to be endured, but a product to be designed.

It is possible to build a system that is not only effective at identifying talent but is also a source of pride for the company and a positive, memorable experience for the candidate.⁸

The interview process is the most powerful signal a company sends about its internal culture. It is not a separate, administrative function walled off from the “real work.” To a candidate, the interview process is the culture made manifest. A disorganized, disrespectful, or arrogant interview process is a tangible warning that the day-to-day work environment is likely to be just as chaotic and unsupportive. It is a cultural “tell” that reveals the company’s true values far more than any mission statement on a website.

When a candidate navigates a series of well-orchestrated, respectful, and insightful conversations, they are not just being evaluated; they are being shown what it feels like to work there.¹¹ A great process is the most compelling advertisement for a great culture. Therefore, fixing a broken interview process is not merely a tactical improvement; it is a strategic imperative for any organization that hopes to attract and retain the very best people.

At the heart of every broken interview process is a flawed mindset. Conversely, at the heart of every great one is a single, powerful virtue: humility. The difference between companies that repel top talent and those that attract it often comes down to the chasm between arrogance and humility.

The Arrogance of the Average vs. The Humility of the Elite

The average company operates from a position of arrogance and entitlement. They see the interview as a transaction where they hold all the power. Their posture suggests that candidates should be grateful for the opportunity and must prove their worthiness. This mindset leads them to treat candidates like commodities, expecting them to jump through hoops and perform on command.

In stark contrast, top-tier companies operate from a place of powerful humility. They understand that the market for exceptional talent is fiercely competitive and that great people have choices. They know that the burden is on them to convince a talented designer to join their mission. Their entire process is built not on evaluation alone, but also on persuasion. They are not just interviewing the candidate; they are actively recruiting them, selling them on the team, the challenges, and the culture. This is not a sign of weakness but of a deep, strategic understanding of the talent landscape.

Humility as a Strategic Advantage

This humble approach is not simply a matter of being “nice.” It is a strategic advantage rooted in a more accurate view of reality. Research consistently shows that humble leaders and organizations foster environments of psychological safety, encourage a culture of learning, and ultimately achieve superior performance.¹² A hiring process steeped in humility means admitting that a resume and a portfolio only tell part of the story. It means being genuinely open to being impressed and surprised. It means treating every candidate as a potential long-term partner, not a supplicant.¹⁵ It is about recognizing the limitations of one’s own perspective and actively seeking to understand the value that others can bring.¹⁷ This fundamental shift in mindset reframes every subsequent step of the process. It transforms a series of gates and tests into a series of collaborative conversations designed to build a relationship and discover mutual fit.

This posture of humility is also the most powerful antidote to the hiring biases that plague so many organizations. An arrogant, “prove yourself to me” mindset naturally amplifies unconscious bias. It encourages interviewers to trust their “gut feel,” which is often just a proxy for pattern-matching and a preference for candidates who fit a familiar mold of background, pedigree, or communication style.¹¹ This leads to homogenous teams and the rejection of brilliant people who don’t fit the expected profile.

Humility disrupts this entire mechanism. A humble mindset begins with the acknowledgment of one’s own limitations, including the limitation of inherent biases.¹⁷ When an interviewer approaches a conversation with the genuine belief that their initial impression might be wrong, they are forced to abandon “gut feel” and seek actual evidence. They ask more questions, listen more deeply, and rely on the objective data from a structured rubric rather than their own subjective feelings.¹¹ This shift from subjective judgment to evidence-based evaluation is the cornerstone of fair and equitable hiring. Therefore, cultivating humility is not a soft, feel-good initiative; it is a critical business strategy for reducing bias, increasing diversity, and making objectively better hiring decisions.

The first human interactions a candidate has with a company set the tone for the entire relationship. A process that begins with intention and respect immediately signals a healthy culture and builds a foundation of trust. Two simple, structural changes at the very beginning of the process can transform the candidate experience from one of frustration to one of genuine engagement.

Why should the hiring manager see every profile before a recruiter reaches out?

In a typical, flawed process, a recruiter works from a static job description, screening candidates based on keyword matches and prescribed criteria. This frequently leads to “false negatives”—great candidates who are screened out because their resume doesn’t perfectly match the recruiter’s checklist whose potential a hiring manager would immediately recognize.¹⁸ This creates wasted effort for everyone. The recruiter spends time on calls that go nowhere, and the candidate becomes frustrated with a process that seems incapable of understanding their actual skills.

The solution is a simple but powerful shift in workflow: the hiring manager (HM) must conduct a quick pre-screen of all sourced candidate profiles before a recruiter makes contact.²⁰ This is a small investment of the HM’s time—often just a few minutes per day—that yields enormous returns.²²

The benefits are threefold. For the candidate, it means that when a recruiter calls, they know there is genuine, pre-vetted interest from the actual decision-maker. The conversation is immediately elevated from a speculative screening to a serious discussion. For the recruiter, it means their time is focused on high-potential candidates, dramatically improving their efficiency, success rate, and morale. For the business, it drastically reduces the risk of accidentally rejecting a star candidate before they even get a chance to talk to the team.²³

Why must you stop asking for salary expectations upfront?

The question, “What are your salary expectations?” is one of the most toxic and counterproductive relics of old-school hiring. It is a power play disguised as a logistical inquiry, and it should be eliminated from any modern, respectful hiring process.

It is an inherently inequitable practice. It forces the candidate to name a number a situation that systematically disadvantages women and people of color, who are statistically less likely to negotiate aggressively and whose salary histories are often lower due to systemic pay gaps.²⁴ Continuing this practice actively perpetuates these inequities.

It is a game that yields useless information. Most savvy candidates today are coached to deflect or give a vague range, knowing that the first person to name a number often loses. The conversation devolves into a dance of non-answers rather than a genuine exploration of value.

It prematurely narrows the conversation. Total compensation is a complex package that includes not just base salary but also potential bonuses, equity, benefits, and opportunities for professional growth.²⁶ Asking for a single number upfront prevents a more holistic discussion about the total value of the opportunity.

The humane, transparent, and increasingly legally required alternative is simple: state the budgeted salary range for the role upfront.²⁸ This act of transparency immediately builds trust. It allows candidates to self-select out if the compensation is not aligned with their needs, saving everyone’s time.²⁶ Most importantly, it signals that the company is a fair and open employer, not one that is trying to trick a candidate into accepting less than they are worth.²⁵

These two initial actions—HM pre-screening and salary transparency—function as a powerful litmus test for company culture. They are not minor procedural details; they are powerful signals of a company’s core values. A process that incorporates these steps implicitly tells a candidate, “We respect your time and expertise,” and “We are committed to fairness and transparency.” This builds a crucial foundation of psychological safety and goodwill before the first formal interview even takes place. Conversely, a process that skips these steps signals disrespect and opacity, creating a deficit of trust that the company must then struggle to overcome for the remainder of the process.

Once a candidate is engaged, the interview loop itself becomes the primary vehicle for assessment. A well-designed loop is not a series of tests or interrogations, but a set of structured, collaborative conversations designed to reveal a candidate’s skills, thinking, and character in the most authentic way possible. This requires abandoning common but flawed practices in favor of more thoughtful, evidence-based alternatives.

What does a structured, respectful interview loop look like?

A strong product design interview loop is built around a few core components, each designed to assess a different facet of the designer’s capabilities. The entire process should be framed as a series of conversations, not hurdles.⁹

• The Portfolio Presentation (“Past Work” Review): This is the cornerstone of the entire process. It is not a casual walkthrough of a website; it is a formal, 30-45 minute presentation where the candidate tells the detailed story of two to three of their most major projects.⁹ The focus is on their ability to construct a compelling narrative that goes beyond the final visuals. A great presentation clearly articulates the initial problem, the rationale for the project, the key decisions and trade-offs made during the process, and the ultimate impact on the user and the business.²⁹ To maximize impact, candidates should be coached to show the final, polished designs and key success metrics right at the beginning. This immediately hooks the audience and makes them invested in learning how the candidate achieved those results.⁹
• The App Critique: This is a 45-minute, real-time assessment of a candidate’s product thinking and design sensibility.³⁰ The interviewer and candidate collaboratively choose a well-known, complex mobile app that both have on their phones (e.g., Spotify, Yelp, Google Maps).⁹ The candidate then leads a structured critique, analyzing the app holistically. They should be able to deconstruct the app’s purpose, its business model, its target audience, and then evaluate its strengths and weaknesses across interaction design, visual design, and overall strategy. The goal is not just to find flaws to offer thoughtful, well-reasoned suggestions for improvement, demonstrating a deep understanding of what makes a product successful.⁹
• The Behavioral Interview (“Background”): This is a crucial conversation focused on the so-called “soft skills” that are essential for success in a collaborative environment. This interview delves into how a candidate works with cross-functional partners like product managers and engineers, how they navigate conflict and disagreement, and their capacity for self-awareness and growth.⁹ This is where an interviewer can move beyond the “what” of the candidate’s work and understand the “how.”

Why should you throw out your design exercises?

Many companies rely on take-home design exercises as a core part of their process. This is a mistake. These common practices are fundamentally flawed, inequitable, and poor predictors of on-the-job success.

They are inequitable. Take-home exercises, which can often require 8-10 hours or more of work, are a form of unpaid labor. They create an unfair barrier for candidates who have demanding jobs, families, or other personal commitments and simply cannot dedicate a weekend of free work to an application process.³² This systematically filters out a diverse range of talented individuals.

But even if the design exercises are paid, it’s not great. Even if you pay a candidate, say, $600 for a design exercise – what’s that to a large company? Paid design exercises can still be seen as a cheap way for a company to get lots of different ways to solve a problem.

What kinds of questions reveal a designer’s character and motivation?

The quality of an interview is determined by the quality of its questions. Lazy, generic questions like “Why do you want to work here?” should be avoided at all costs.³⁴ These questions invite canned, inauthentic answers and reveal almost nothing of value about the candidate’s true motivations or capabilities.³⁶

Instead, interviewers should use powerful, open-ended questions that prompt genuine reflection and storytelling. These questions are designed to uncover a candidate’s underlying values, their capacity for growth, and their depth of thought. Drawing inspiration from seasoned leaders like former Facebook design executive Julie Zhuo, here are some far more effective alternatives:

• To assess thoughtfulness and a high bar for quality: “Tell me about a project in your portfolio that you are particularly proud of. Imagine you were given two more months to work on it. What would you have done differently? What would you add or continue to refine?” A great candidate will have a long list of things they wish they could have improved, showing they are never fully satisfied and always see room for growth.²⁹
• To assess critical thinking and intellectual honesty: “Tell me about a time you disagreed with the findings from user research. What did you do, and what was the outcome?” This question reveals if a candidate can think critically about data and methodology, rather than blindly following orders.⁴¹
• To assess self-awareness and a growth mindset: “Describe a really challenging situation you went through at work. If you could go back to the very beginning of that situation, what would you do differently now?” This is a powerful question that reveals a candidate’s ability to learn from their mistakes. A candidate who blames external factors is a red flag, while one who is excited to share their learnings demonstrates proactivity and resilience.³⁷
• To assess self-awareness and motivation: “Which parts of being a product designer seem to come naturally to you? And which parts have you had to put more effort into learning?” This question provides a direct window into a candidate’s self-perception, their passions, and their commitment to professional growth.⁴²

This shift in questioning moves the interview from a superficial test of a candidate’s ability to flatter the company to a deep, meaningful exploration of their character, intellect, and drive.

Table 1: From Flawed to Thoughtful Interviewing

The following table summarizes the shift from low-value, high-stress interview techniques to high-value, respectful alternatives that are more effective at identifying true talent.

Flawed Practice	Thoughtful Alternative	Why It’s Better
“Why do you want to work here?”	“Tell me about a project that’s inspired you recently. What did you admire about it?” or “What are you looking to learn or grow into in your next role?”	Moves from a test of flattery to a genuine exploration of the candidate’s passions, values, and ambitions.
Take-Home Design Exercise	In-Depth Portfolio Presentation	Evaluates real work done with real constraints, not unpaid, artificial work. Respects the candidate’s time and is a far better predictor of on-the-job performance.
Live Whiteboard Challenge	Collaborative App Critique	Shifts from a high-pressure solo performance to a collaborative discussion. It assesses product thinking and design sensibility in a more realistic and less stressful context.
Asking for Salary Expectations	Providing the Salary Range Upfront	Replaces a power play with transparency. Builds trust, ensures fairness, respects the candidate’s time, and is legally sound.

The interviews are over. The conversations have ended. Now comes a moment of powerful responsibility: the debrief. This is not just another meeting on the calendar; it is a sacred space where a team comes together to honor the candidate’s time and talent with a thoughtful, fair, and deeply human evaluation. To do this with integrity requires structure, a way to protect our judgment from the quiet whispers of bias and groupthink.

The Power of a Structured Debrief

A debrief held with care and intention is a powerful shield against poor decision-making. It should happen quickly, within a day of the final interview, Although the conversations are still fresh in the heart and mind.⁵⁰ The structure is not about rigid rules, but about creating a space for every voice to be heard and every piece of evidence to be weighed with wisdom.

1. Quiet, Individual Reflection: Before the voices of the group can sway the heart, each interviewer must retreat into a quiet moment of reflection. Here, they must fill out their own scorecard, alone.⁵⁰ This is a non-negotiable act of integrity. It forces each person to commit their own thoughts to paper, based on the agreed-upon virtues of the role—like Product Sense, Craft, or Collaboration—before being influenced by the opinions of others.¹¹
2. A Circle of Voices: The gathering begins not with the loudest voice with a respectful, round-robin sharing of perspectives. The hiring manager, acting as a gentle guide, ensures that every single person, from the most junior to the most senior, has an uninterrupted chance to speak their mind.⁵⁰ This simple act ensures that wisdom is gathered from every corner of the room, not just from the seat of power.
3. A Foundation of Truth, Not Feelings: The conversation that follows must be built on a foundation of truth. Vague feelings like “I just didn’t get a good vibe” have no place here; they are often masks for our hidden biases. Instead, every comment must be tied to something real—a specific story the candidate told, a particular answer they gave.⁵⁰ A statement like, “When I asked about handling criticism, they blamed their old team,” is rooted in evidence. It allows the group to discuss a behavior, not a feeling, and measure it against the values the team holds dear.
4. Embracing Disagreement with Grace: A healthy debrief is not about everyone agreeing. It is about a group of people who trust each other enough to disagree with respect. A difference of opinion is a gift; it shines a light on something one person saw that another may have missed. The leader’s role is to explore these differences with genuine curiosity, helping the team understand not just what they think why they think it.⁵¹

The Most Important Question

The scorecards are filled, the evidence weighed. But a human being is more than a collection of data points. A great team is more than a set of skills. And so, after all the logical analysis is done, we must ask a question that comes from the heart, a question that speaks to the soul of the team: “Based on everything we have learned, do we believe this person will thrive in our company and on this specific team?”.⁵³ This question moves us beyond a simple “can they do the job?” to the more powerful “will they flourish with us, and will we flourish with them?” It is a question about potential, about belonging, and about the shared future we might build together.

Handling the “On the Fence” Candidate

Sometimes, a candidate leaves the team standing at a crossroads, caught between a “yes” and a “no.” It is in these moments of uncertainty that our character is tested. The easy path is to say “no,” to let fear or doubt close the door. But the more courageous, more humane path is to pause and ask: “What is the one question we still need to answer?” Perhaps there is a single, lingering doubt that clouds the team’s judgment. The right thing to do is to honor the candidate’s journey by seeking clarity. This might mean scheduling one last, brief conversation focused on that single point of uncertainty. It is a final act of diligence and respect, ensuring that if we close the door, we do so with the confidence that we have explored every possibility.

This debriefing ritual does more than help us choose a candidate. It is a mirror. In discussing what we value in others, we are forced to define and reaffirm our own values. With each debrief, the team becomes more calibrated, more aligned, and more deeply aware of what it truly means to be excellent, together.

The journey has come to an end for a candidate. How we say goodbye matters more than we can imagine. It is a final act of respect, a testament to our company’s soul. This final moment is not an administrative task to be checked off a list; it is a powerful opportunity to treat another human being with dignity and kindness. To handle rejection with grace is not just good manners; it is a strategic act of brand-building and a moral imperative.

The Principle of Proportional Feedback

The depth and medium of the rejection should be directly proportional to the time and effort the candidate has invested in the process. A one-size-fits-all approach is disrespectful.

• For the Initial Application: For those who only submitted a portfolio, a polite, clear, and thoughtful email is enough. It closes the loop with respect and prevents them from being left in the uncertainty of silence.
• After the First Conversation: Once someone has shared their time and story in a phone screen or first interview, the rejection deserves more care. A personalized email that acknowledges their time and offers a brief, high-level reason for the decision is the minimum standard of human decency.
• After the Final Round: For a candidate who has journeyed through the entire process—multiple interviews, presentations, and hours of their life—an email is a cold and unacceptable end. To send a form letter at this stage is to dishonor the trust they have placed in us. The only path of integrity is a human conversation: a phone call from the recruiter or hiring manager.⁵⁴ This is the ultimate sign of respect. It is a moment of connection that offers closure with compassion and leaves the door open for a future relationship, even in the face of disappointment.

The Art of Candor and Kindness

There is a pervasive fear in corporate recruiting of giving honest feedback, driven by a desire to avoid legal risk or uncomfortable conversations. This often leads to vague, meaningless rejection language like, “We’ve decided to pursue other candidates whose skills more closely match our needs”. While well-intentioned, this is a false comfort. People can feel the cold chill of inauthenticity. It leaves them feeling dismissed and unseen.

The path of courage and kindness is to speak the truth, but to speak it with a gentle hand. The goal is to be honest without being cruel. The feedback should never be a judgment of the person’s worth an observation about the specific needs of the role and the context of the company. A helpful framework is to think in terms of Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI).⁵⁶ Instead of a vague and hurtful statement like, “Your presentation wasn’t strategic,” you can offer something true and helpful: “In the portfolio presentation (Situation), you focused on the beautiful visual details of the project (Behavior). For this particular senior role, the team was hoping to hear more about the business goals and user research that guided those decisions (Impact).” This kind of feedback is a gift. It is actionable, respectful, and honors the candidate’s desire to learn and grow.

Table 2: A Framework for Constructive Rejection Feedback

This table provides a practical guide for delivering rejection feedback that is both humane and helpful, tailored to the candidate’s stage in the process.

Stage	Guiding Principle	What to Say (Example)	Why It Works
After Portfolio Screen	Respectful & Efficient	(Email) “Hi \[Name\], thank you for your interest. After reviewing your portfolio, we’ve decided not to move forward at this time as we’re looking for someone with more direct experience in. We truly appreciate you sharing your work with us.”	Acknowledges their work, provides a specific (but high-level) reason, and closes the loop respectfully without creating a long back-and-forth.
After First Interview	Personalized & Appreciative	(Email) “Hi \[Name\], thank you again for your time yesterday. The team really enjoyed learning about your work on \[Project X\]. For this particular role, we’ve decided to move forward with candidates whose experience is more closely aligned with our need for \[e.g., complex data visualization\]. We wish you the best…”	Shows you were paying attention, references a specific positive, and gives a clear, role-related reason for the decision.
After Final Round	Human & Candid	(Phone Call) “Hi \[Name\], thanks again for coming in. It was a very difficult decision, and the team was impressed with \[specific strength, e.g., your visual craft\]. Ultimately, we decided to go with a candidate who had more experience leading projects with multiple engineering teams, which is a key requirement for this role. I wanted to call you personally to thank you and see if you had any questions for me.”	The phone call itself is a sign of respect.The feedback is specific, honest, and framed around the role’s needs, not the candidate’s failings. It keeps the door open for the future.

Conclusion: An Invitation to a Better Way

We have walked a long road together, exploring the mechanics of a better interview process. But this journey is not truly about checklists or frameworks. It is about a transformation of the heart. It is about choosing to build a process that reflects our highest ideals of respect, dignity, and kindness. It is about trading arrogance for humility, transactions for relationships, and tests for conversations.

This is a call to see the interview process not as a series of gates designed to filter people out, but as a thoughtfully designed experience intended to welcome the best people in. When a hiring manager takes the time to review every portfolio, when a company is transparent about what a role pays, when interviews are structured to reveal authentic talent, and when even a rejection is handled with powerful humanity, something incredible happens. The process itself becomes a beacon, signaling to the world that this is a place of character, a place of integrity, a place where people are truly valued.

This is an invitation to be a champion for this more humane way of hiring. By embracing these structures and, more importantly, the humble spirit that gives them life, any leader can transform their interview process from a source of pain into their single greatest recruiting asset. You can build a team, and a culture, that great people do not just want to work for are proud to be a part of.

Works cited