No Thanks: My 7 Non-Negotiables for a Fair Interview Process

How I protect my time, dignity, and career by setting boundaries against broken hiring practices.

The way a company interviews you is often the way they’ll treat you once you’re on the inside.

If they waste your time, dismiss your experience, or undervalue your worth during the process, that’s not just a red flag. That is the flag.

You’re not just being evaluated. You’re evaluating them too. And no opportunity is worth compromising your values.

That’s why I’ve set clear boundaries, not out of ego, but out of respect for my time, my dignity, and the work I bring. I believe any serious employer should do the same.

Note: This isn’t about a current job search. It’s a reflection of the standards I’ve developed over years in tech.

My 7 Hard Rules for Every Interview

These are the rules I’ve come to apply through experience. They reflect what I value and need in a hiring process. They may not apply to everyone but they help me filter for the right fit.

1. No LeetCode Drills or Live Coding Sessions

A Personal Experience

Years ago, when I was living in the UK, I interviewed for a Tech Lead Manager role. The first round was an automated coding challenge. I chose Ruby, solved everything, and submitted.

A few days later, I got an auto-rejection. No feedback. No human interaction. Just a cold “no”.

Live coding interviews are no better. I have been asked to code an algorithm for a Trie data structure, on the spot. No one asked how I lead teams, scale systems, or make hard trade-offs. They just wanted to see if I could perform under artificial pressure.

Why I Draw the Line

These interviews test speed and memorization, not engineering judgment. They ignore leadership, communication, and the messy, collaborative work that defines real engineering.

I can write code, design complex systems, and lead engineers. But engineering leadership is not about solving puzzles in isolation. It is about solving real problems with real people.

A Better Approach

If you want to assess technical depth in an engineering leader:

• Ask about architecture I have led

• Review a system design together

• Walk through a real trade-off I made in production

If your process still centers on reversing linked lists or binary trees, it likely won’t surface the kind of leadership I bring.

2. No Lengthy Take-Home Assignments

A Personal Experience

I once received a “quick” take-home coding exercise for a team manager role. It ended up taking more than a dozen hours. I worked nights and weekends to build a complete backend project with edge cases, tests, and documentation, all while balancing a full-time job and family responsibilities.

I even included suggestions for improvements. A few days later, they asked me to implement them.

Then came the message: “Congratulations, you’re moving forward. Please submit an engineering best practices guide and a leadership presentation.”

That was the last time I accepted a take-home assignment without clear limits.

Why I Draw the Line

Take-home assignments can be useful when they’re well-scoped and fair. But most are not. They tend to:

Demand excessive unpaid time,
penalize candidates with full lives outside of work,
emphasize output over decision-making.

If your evaluation relies on marathon take-home work, you’re not assessing ability; you’re screening for availability.

A Better Approach

If you want to see how I think and work:

• Set a clear two-hour limit and stick to it

• Let me walk through a real project I’ve led

• Or review code together and talk trade-offs

Lengthy take-home assignments don’t test skill. They test how much free time you have, often excluding those with limited availability, such as managers and parents.

3. No More Than Five Interview Rounds

A Personal Experience

I once went through a long interview loop for a promising engineering management role. It was a great startup with an exciting product. After the recruiter call, I was told to expect three more interviews.

I was wrong. It turned into an NxM process: a technical loop, a management loop, and a culture fit loop, each with multiple rounds.

At that point, I wasn’t being interviewed. I was auditioning. For free.

I didn’t drop out sooner because of the sunk cost fallacy. I kept thinking, maybe the next one would be the last.

Why I Draw the Line

Dragging candidates through endless interviews sends the wrong message. It usually means one of two things:

The company struggles to make decisions,
or they don’t value your time.

Both are red flags.

And the more people involved, the more diluted the signal becomes. With every added opinion, your chances of passing decrease. Consensus is not a substitute for clarity.

A Better Approach

A well-run process looks like this:

• Limit the interview loop to three to five rounds

• Respect the candidate’s calendar

• Move with urgency and purpose

If it takes weeks and a dozen people to decide whether I’m a fit, the problem likely isn’t the candidate; it’s the process.

4. No Second Interviews Without Discussing Salary

A Personal Experience

I once interviewed with a well-known tech company. After the recruiter call, the hiring manager interview, and five final rounds, everything seemed on track. The team was enthusiastic, and the conversations went well.

Then came the offer: about 30 percent below my current salary.

I understand compensation can vary. Location, equity, bonuses, and negotiation all play a role. But given my background and the signals I received throughout the process, the offer was unexpectedly low. Even some local startups were offering more.

I had heard not to bring up salary early with such well-know tech companies. People said they would pay fairly. They didn’t, in this case. I had wasted weeks on a role I would have declined upfront if they had just been transparent.

Why I Draw the Line

If you are not upfront about compensation, you are not respecting the candidate’s time.

Salary ranges are not just numbers. They reflect trust, clarity, and alignment. Hiding them puts all the risk on the candidate and signals a power imbalance.

It also discourages underrepresented candidates from negotiating or even applying, which reinforces pay gaps and inequality.

A Better Approach

If you are serious about the role:

• Share the salary range by the second conversation, ideally in the job description

• Be clear about your compensation philosophy: is it fixed, flexible, or tied to equity

• If you cannot meet expectations, say so early. Save everyone time

Compensation is not a taboo topic. It is a business conversation. If a company cannot handle that professionally, I do not trust how they will handle anything else.

5. No Negotiating Low-Ball Offers or Down-Leveling

A Personal Experience

Some time ago, after a smooth interview process for a senior leadership role, the recruiter called with good news: “You really impressed the team. They’d love to move forward.”

Then came the twist. “We’re offering one level below the original scope. The team felt you’d grow into the higher role soon.” The offer was well below market, with vague promises and no clear path to advancement.

I declined, even though it was a well-known company I had been eager to join.

I do not believe in down-leveling or vague future promises. I’ve seen how, on both sides, as a candidate and as a hiring manager, it creates confusion, misaligned expectations, and broken trust.

Why I Draw the Line

Low-ball offers and down-leveling can signal a lack of alignment. They often suggest one of three things:

The company may be trying to stretch its budget,
they might not fully understand the impact of the role,
or they may be unsure how to assess seniority accurately.

In leadership roles, scope, compensation, and authority need to align. When they don’t, the risk of misalignment and future friction increases, sometimes setting the hire up for a difficult start.

A Better Approach

Great hires start with clarity:

• Benchmark roles and offers to the market

• Be clear about level, scope, and expectations

• Reject if you are not confident, but do not down-level to keep them “just in case”

Pay for the role you are hiring, not for what someone might grow into.

I’m not here to negotiate my worth. That kind of process simply doesn’t align with how I approach leadership and problem-solving.

6. No Room for Disrespect in Interviews

A Personal Experience

I once interviewed with a large tech company. After several strong rounds, I reached the final interview.

The interviewer arrived late and began by introducing himself as a highly senior architect and the proud creator of one of their products. He made it clear he would be the final decision-maker. And he was not joking.

As we started, I mentioned that Elixir was my preferred programming language. He seemed unfamiliar with it and spent a few moments looking it up. The dynamic shifted, and I began to feel uneasy. I offered Ruby as an alternative to help the conversation flow more smoothly. He responded with, “What esoteric languages you use,” which caught me off guard.

A few questions later, after I shared a technical answer he disagreed with, the interview ended abruptly. His final comment was, “Our managers need to be highly technical.”

I left the call feeling disheartened. What began as a promising opportunity ended with clear misalignment. Not just technically, but also in values and communication style. While I didn’t move forward, the experience gave me valuable insight into what I’m looking for in a team and environment.

Why I Draw the Line

Interviews are not just evaluations. They reveal the culture behind the scenes.

If someone behaves with arrogance, disrespect, or hostility in an interview, that is often how they act at work. If the company defends or ignores it, that tells you what they are willing to tolerate.

Respect is not optional. It is the foundation of trust, safety, and performance. Especially in leadership roles where communication and emotional intelligence matter just as much as technical skill.

A Better Approach

Culture shows up in every interview:

• Train interviewers to assess candidates and represent company values

• Watch for legacy hires who slipped through before principles mattered

• Ask candidates for feedback, and act on it

A poor interview experience can push great talent away. An unprepared or dismissive interviewer can do lasting harm to your culture. I value honest feedback and clear expectations, but there’s a difference between being direct and being disrespectful. If your team cannot make that distinction, we may not be aligned.

7. No Half-Measures on Remote Work

A Personal Experience

Some years ago, I interviewed with a company that called itself “remote-friendly.” But throughout the process, contradictions appeared.

One leader preferred people “close to the office.” Another mentioned “We’re flexible, but ideally we’d love managers to come in a few days a week.”

That was not flexibility. It revealed a misalignment between the expectations and the reality of the role.

I have built and led high-performing remote teams. I know the value of focused, async, distributed work. The problem with “remote-friendly” setups is that when leadership stays in the office, remote employees fall behind. They miss the hallway chats, the unplanned lunches, the in-room decisions. They become second-class employees.

Why I Draw the Line

Remote work is not a perk. It’s an operating model. Leading remotely takes intention. It demands clear communication, real autonomy, and outcome-based expectations.

When companies are not truly remote-first, you often see:

Office voices gaining more influence,
confusion about availability and presence,
broken collaboration caused by a lack of shared habits.

Remote leadership is not about working from home. It’s about designing teams that thrive apart.

A Better Approach

Remote work only works when it’s intentional:

• Be clear about your model: remote, hybrid, or office-first

• Shift the mindset from hours worked to impact delivered

• Give teams the tools and practices they need to succeed remotely

Remote work shifts the focus from busyness to meaningful outcomes. I am here to do work that matters, measured by results, not hours seated on a chair or office presence. If your model still equates productivity with being seen, we are not aligned.

Final Thoughts: Boundaries for Mutual Respect

These aren’t just preferences. They’re principles I’ve learned to hold, to protect my time, my dignity, and the career I’ve built with intention.

Some might say I’m being too selective. Maybe. But I’ve learned the hard way: not every door is worth opening.

This isn’t about ego. It’s about knowing what matters, and having the self-respect to expect it in return.

You don’t have to follow my rules. But you should have your own.

So ask yourself: What do you need from an interview process to feel respected, valued, and set up for success? What are your non-negotiables?

The clearer you are about your boundaries, the easier it is to recognize the opportunities that truly fit.

Hiring is a two-way street. What would make you walk away from an offer?

---

Thanks for reading The Engineering Leader. 🙏

If you enjoyed this issue, tap the ❤️, share it with someone who'd appreciate it, and subscribe to stay in the loop for future editions.

👋 Let’s keep in touch. Connect with me on LinkedIn.