Why AI Interviews Could Be Bad News for Honest Designers

The question posed in the demo came from a real recruiter—likely a Head of Design:
“Can you tell me about a time when you used user research to inform an important decision?”

On the surface, it’s a classic design interview question. Reasonable. Even expected. But something about it didn’t sit right.

Over the past few years, I’ve spoken with hundreds of designers and design leaders, and one theme comes up again and again: the lack of support for research. Designers want to do research. They know it improves outcomes. But more often than not, they’re denied the time, budget, or headcount. Instead, they’re told to “just deliver” what the product team has already decided.

So when we ask questions like this, we’re often evaluating candidates on their ability to thrive in a utopian, high-maturity environment—one that simply doesn’t exist in most companies. And we subtly penalise those who haven’t had the privilege of working in such conditions.

It starts to feel less like an interview and more like a test of how well someone can perform in a fantasy scenario.

What makes this worse is the rigid nature of the interview setup—especially when it’s pre-scripted or AI-assisted. If I were in a real conversation with a Head of Design and was asked that question, I might respond:

“That’s a really interesting question. Out of curiosity, how often does research actually inform decision-making in your current organisation? Because in my experience, I’ve wanted to do more research, but most teams I’ve worked on have been highly product-led, with limited time or budget for real discovery work.”

That kind of exchange can open up a productive conversation. It shows curiosity, realism, and strategic awareness. But in a rigid, one-way interview—especially one run by AI—you don’t get to do that. You're forced to play along, answering questions based on assumptions you might not agree with, about working conditions you’ve never had.

The deeper issue isn’t just the format. It’s that too many design interviews are built around idealised assumptions rather than lived reality. They reflect how we wish design operated, not how it actually does.

A more honest question might be:
“Tell me about a time you wanted to do research but weren’t supported. What did you do? How did you manage to deliver something worthwhile anyway?”

That question recognises the constraints most designers face. It invites real reflection, not performance. And crucially, it signals to candidates that you get it—that you understand the messiness of modern product organisations and value people who can navigate it with integrity.

Because here’s the truth: great designers aren’t just good at executing ideal processes. They’re good at adapting, advocating, and finding ways to do good work in imperfect systems.

And that’s what we should be hiring for.