Is it okay to say NO

I am currently at a stage in my career where I am not simply looking for “a new role,” but for a meaningful next step that matches my experience, seniority, and values.

As part of this process, I’ve encountered very different hiring approaches. Most are market average, even if somewhat automated or impersonal. A few, however, cross a line that I believe is worth discussing publicly.

This is one such case.

“We see it not as free work, but…”

I was asked to complete a “strategic task” intended to assess fit (for discretion, no names will be mentioned).

The assignment required:

• A 15–20 page go-to-market and growth strategy

• An 18-month execution roadmap, broken into phases with concrete actions

• Ideal client archetypes, including psychological drivers and entry moments

• A detailed channel strategy, including specific publications, events, partnerships, and formats

• Budget logic and detailed resource allocation

• Risk, ethics, and brand protection analysis

• -> Explicit use of my personal network, including who I would approach (names optional but encouraged)

  
  

It was also explicitly stated: “We see it not as free work, but as a mutual exploration of fit, ambition, and alignment.”

This task was sent to 35 candidates, out of whom 5 will get the chance to move to interviews.

Unpaid Strategic Work

Senior roles should include thinking tasks. I’ve completed them many times, and I’ve assigned them myself.

However, there is a clear distinction between:

• Testing how someone thinks, and

• Requesting execution-ready intellectual property.

In my experience, the strongest candidates don’t need to be pressured into producing a ready-to-run plan. If the case is scoped well and fair, they’ll often volunteer extra depth on their own — and that’s the signal you actually want.

But this assignment was not a concept sketch or a strategic framing exercise. The outcome was a fully deployable business plan as-is. Times 35.

Simple Math

Let’s do the math:

• 35 candidates

• 1 full day each (bare minimum to provide sufficient input for the requested task, plus putting it into a presentable format—AI can only do so much; manual input is still needed)

• -> That’s a total of 35 unique market-entry strategies, and not to mention 35–40 days of senior strategic labor used for free.

  
  

With a 14% progression probability, the expected return for candidates is extremely low, while the upside for the company is very high. I see it as quite an unethical way to build your company. Even if people provide the output for free, there is no IP protection policy suggested in the task description.

At this specific level of depth—requested at scale, with low progression probability—it feels closer to crowdsourced strategy than candidate evaluation.

Founder Convenience Over Candidate Respect

My thoughts for both sides:

-> For companies:

• If you need consulting-grade output, consider outsourcing this strategy from experienced service providers and be willing to pay for it.

• If that’s not what you want to do, narrow the task to a reasonable output and account for the time and IP required.

The outcome: you’ll attract better candidates.

-> For candidates:

• It’s okay to say no.

• Boundaries are not a lack of ambition or a sign of weakness. They’re a signal of maturity, respect, and self-respect.

  
  

Sometimes, how you hire will define which types of candidates you will get.