A client was interviewing for a senior role recently. The recruiter loved her. He called, he emailed and he followed up to make sure she moved to the next rounds.
Then the next-round request arrived. I kid you not, they asked her to prepare the following, in seven days:
Her vision for their entire global service line
A go-to-market strategy, including new offerings and how to use their technology partnerships
A plan to retrain a practice of a few hundred engineers in new skills
The delivery methodology she would use to get AI into production and keep it there
How they should use AI to run their own delivery
How to turn their best client work into products and sales collateral
The specific relationships from her own network that she'd bring to grow their biggest market
A six-month action plan
She'd present it in 40 minutes, then take questions. In addition, this would be a role that was expected to move mountains on a 8-digit business with their "influence"; the candidate would be responsible for the number and new service products without owning the resources responsible for delivering it
Companies, do you understand how this lands with a candidate? You aren't asking for an interview. You're asking for a strategy engagement that a consulting firm would scope, staff and bill out at six figures, from someone you haven't decided to hire. I can promise this: you have left an incredibly negative perception on most of the candidates. Furthermore, the ones that accept these interviewing terms are not the ones that can solve the massive challenges you have.
I understand why companies do it. A bad executive hire is expensive, and leaders want to see how someone thinks before handing them a team and a P&L. The goal is fine. The method is the problem.
The Numbers Are Not Close
It's common, and usually unrewarded. 47% of job seekers were required to do unpaid work during an interview process, and 55% of them didn't get the job (Software Finder).
Employers lose people they wanted. 73% of employers say they've lost a candidate because they assigned a task, and 82% of workers call these tasks unfair (HR Leader, citing Indeed).
Candidates set a low limit. Only 5% think two or more hours of unpaid work is reasonable (MyPerfectResume).
The free-ideas suspicion has some basis. Almost half of the companies that assign tasks admit they've repurposed submitted work (HR Leader).
Why the Practice Is Broken
It's free consulting. A serious answer to a brief like this takes 20 to 40 hours (if done honestly vs. having AI do it). Ask several finalists at once and the company collects several competing strategies for nothing.
It tests the wrong skill. AI can draft a beautiful strategy deck, and it can be polished it over a weekend. A deck demonstrates that the candidate knows how to use tools, not that they can do the job. (It's a good example of where AI helps in a job search and where it doesn't.) The better test is whether someone can walk in with no slides and no notes and still offer sharp insight in real time.
The candidate is guessing. An outsider doesn't see the hiring company's margins, utilization, pipeline or politics. A six-month plan built without those facts is a prescription without a diagnosis.
It rewards free time over ability. A week-long assignment favors people who aren't working, caregiving or managing other interviews. Your strongest candidates are often the busiest, and the most likely to decline.
It suggests the company doesn't know what to do. A brief covering strategy, go-to-market, talent, methodology, internal AI, product, network and a six-month plan isn't a logical hiring exercise. It sounds more like a leadership team that doesn't know what to do or hasn't agreed on what the role is for and is asking candidates to figure it out. Experienced executives notice, and wonder how much confusion they'd inherit.
It filters for the wrong people. Who completes a 40-hour unpaid assignment without asking about scope, pay or timing? Often it's the candidate who feels they can't push back. Confident leaders question the request, renegotiate it or decline. A company that rewards silent compliance screens out the judgment it says it wants, then wonders why the new hire won't challenge the CEO or tell a client no.
What Companies Should Do Instead
This is part of a bigger need to rethink how we decide who gets hired.
Run a live working session on two or three real problems.
Ask one focused question with a short prep window.
Dig into their track record: a transformation they actually led, what failed and what they measured.
Pay for real strategy through a short advisory engagement if you need a full plan.
And whatever format you use, call every finalist when it's over. Ghosting finalists after asking for this much work does lasting damage.
Walk Away, or Respond From a Position of Strength
The default answer is to walk away. A company that asks for a week of unpaid strategy is comfortable taking without respecting the candidate's time and intellectual property while giving nothing back.
If you think the company is better than its process and you really want the role, don't comply quietly. Respond like a peer, not an applicant. How you handle the request is the real test. They're hiring someone to tell clients, "Here's a better way to do this." Do that respectfully about their own process and you've shown them the job. If they react badly, they have done you a favor. Walk away confidently, you can do better.
Here's how to handle this situation like the sophisticated executive they are trying to hire:
Qualify the opportunity first. Ask how many candidates are presenting, whether another step follows, when they'll decide, and what the P&L scope, team, budget and compensation are. If they won't share compensation before asking for a week of your work, you should not proceed. Afterall, what if it pays half what you are looking for?
Hi [Recruiter],
Thank you for the invitation and for sending the brief. I'm very interested in the role and in having deeper conversations with [the panel].
Before I confirm participation in the next step, I have a few questions:
How many candidates will be presenting, and is there another step after this one?
What is the expected timeline for a decision?
Can you confirm the P&L scope, the team and budget I would have to execute, and the compensation range?
Thank you.
[Your Name]
In this case, the hiring company would not answer the budget question and stated that there would be "3-5 finalists". That is not a final round, and if the answer was 2, my client probably wouldn't have arrived at a "hard no" on the project request. She still would have pushed back, but at least she could be comforted to know that if she decided to expend the effort, she had a 50% chance of getting the offer. But with 3-5 "finalists," is was looking more and more like an effort to get free consulting.
The client declined the format and offered a better one.
Hi [Recruiter],
Thank you for your response.
I don't believe there's enough time to do this exercise meaningfully, and I'm not sure it will give the panel what it's looking for. Most people can produce a polished presentation with AI. A credible plan depends on data only [the company] has, and the brief describes the work the person you hire should do in their first months. A more reliable test is whether someone can walk in with little preparation and, based on experience, say what it will take to reach your goals and what they think will stand in the way.
My track record speaks to what I can do. As you narrow down your candidate pool, I'd welcome a peer discussion with the panel about the challenges you face, what success would require as we ponder it together, and where I could excel. I think that would tell us both more, and faster.
If the case study is a firm requirement, then I will have to pass on this exciting opportunity. In that event, I thank you for your time and confidence in my candidacy nonetheless, and would love to stay in touch with you.
Best regards,
[Your Name]
Why it works:
It critiques the test, not the people. Not enough time, AI can make the deck, a real plan needs internal data, and the brief describes the job itself.
It says she won't expend this level of effort at this stage. She's unwilling to do a week's worth of work when her chances of getting the job are 20-30%.
It sets a clear boundary and exits gracefully. It says that she will pass if the case study is required, but still thanks them and keeps the door open.
If you'd rather keep negotiating, a softer version works too: propose a 60-minute live session with no slides, and offer a short paid advisory engagement if they still want a written plan.
The Bottom Line
Hiring should test the candidate's capability, not require their intellectual property for free and require them to spend an inordinate amount of their time when they have a relatively low chance of winning. The best leaders can walk into a room with nothing in their hands and have great strategic impact. If you are recruiting, hire for that, and pay for the strategy. And if you're the candidate, remember that how you respond to the request [should be] part of the interview.
If you're a senior leader weighing a request like this, RocketJob helps executives run a search from a position of strength. Book a strategy call.
