When interviews turn into unpaid work: A job seeker’s hiring experience raises concerns for young professionals

Indian service, based companies are rapidly trying to change their image to product companies that are AI, driven. As a result, many professionals have come across a worrying hiring trend: interviews that are covertly turned into unpaid consulting tasks. A senior professional's recent experience on Reddit has resonated with the tech and consulting communities, pushing them to question hiring ethics, power imbalance, and the real cost of "assessment rounds". Even though the event is about one company, the problems that it brings up are being recognized in different industries like AI transformation, automation, and digital strategy more and more.

While the incident involves one company, the issues it highlights are increasingly familiar across sectors such as AI transformation, automation, and digital strategy.

When an interview becomes a transformation project

The professional, with prior Big Four experience, was interviewed by an Ahmedabad-based firm that currently outsources taxation and accounting services for the US market. The firm’s ambition was clear: it wanted to evolve into an AI automation product company to scale operations and expand internationally.

However, the company reportedly had no existing AI capability, no automation framework, and no internal product team. The role under discussion involved leading the entire digital and AI transformation from scratch.

Early in the process, salary expectations were discussed and formally documented by HR. Subsequent interview rounds focused intensely on the candidate’s past work, systems built, and ability to architect large-scale automation. Over five rounds, the discussions became increasingly detailed and execution-oriented.

A “test assignment” that went far beyond evaluation

As part of the assessment, the candidate was asked to submit a detailed strategy for transforming the organisation through AI. This was not a conceptual exercise. The submission included a full-scale roadmap outlining how manual tax processes could be converted into AI-driven workflows over 12 and 24 months.

The plan reportedly covered granular process mapping, automation logic for document processing and account reconciliation, AI and machine learning models required at each stage, and even algorithm-level flowcharts. A competitor analysis and product expansion strategy for the US market were also included.

In industry terms, the work resembled a paid consulting deliverable or an internal product blueprint, rather than a standard interview case study.

Verbal assurances, followed by a budget reversal

According to the account, the company’s founder responded positively to the submission and discussed a clearly defined leadership role that would involve both technology development and market expansion. HR reportedly conveyed that the compensation would be aligned with the candidate’s stated expectations.

This inspired the candidate to deepen their knowledge of the domain through additional taxation courses while still waiting for the final offer. The reply that followed was nevertheless short and discouraging: the company was still in the process of evaluating other candidates, and the budget it had for the position was less than what was initially announced.

Why this experience resonates with so many professionals

What made this experience particularly unsettling was not the rejection itself, but the sequence and imbalance involved. Salary expectations were acknowledged early, extensive unpaid strategic work was requested, verbal commitments were made, and only then did budget constraints surface.

For many professionals reading the account, the concern was simple: at what point does an interview cross the line into extracting free intellectual labour?

Career experts point out that this pattern is becoming more common, especially as traditional service firms attempt to “pivot to AI” without fully understanding the investment such a shift requires. In the absence of internal clarity, candidates are sometimes used—deliberately or otherwise—as sources of ready-made strategy.

The risks for senior candidates

Unlike junior or entry-level hiring, senior leadership roles are often evaluated on “what you can build”. This makes experienced professionals particularly vulnerable to over-scoped assessments.

There are real risks involved. Strategy documents, roadmaps, and system designs are not generic ideas; they are shaped by years of experience. Once shared, candidates have little control over how that information is used. Moreover, repeated exposure to such processes normalises unpaid labour and weakens professional boundaries across the industry.

Lessons for jobseekers navigating AI leadership roles

While there is no formal recourse in most such situations, career advisors suggest greater caution going forward. Candidates are encouraged to share high-level frameworks rather than execution-ready plans, to seek clarity on how assessment work will be used, and to document compensation discussions in writing wherever possible.

Equally important is recognising early warning signs. Vague budgets, shifting expectations, and excessive “tests” often point to deeper organisational indecision.

A larger question for employers in India’s AI economy

As India positions itself as a global hub for AI and automation, hiring practices will increasingly come under scrutiny. Transformation cannot be built on ambiguous commitments or unpaid expertise.

For professionals, experiences like these are deeply frustrating. For employers, they should serve as a warning. If companies want world-class AI strategy, they must be prepared to value it—ethically, transparently, and fairly.Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!