I recently interviewed with ThoughtWorks for a Lead Visual Designer role and wanted to share my experience of the process. The interview journey had three stages: HR Round – where we discussed my background, experience and what I’m currently learning Portfolio Round – where I walked through my work and design approach Assignment Round – intended to evaluate my design thinking and collaboration While the first two rounds were well-aligned and smooth, I faced a few challenges during the assignment round. Role Misalignment Although I had applied for a Lead Visual Designer role, there appeared to be some confusion during the interview regarding the position itself. During the discussion, the interviewer mentioned that the opportunity was for a Senior role and asked whether I would still consider joining at that level. I clarified that I had applied specifically for a Lead role and my expectations were aligned accordingly. The interviewer then mentioned that she would need to communicate this back to HR, which indicated that there may have been a misalignment internally regarding the role I was being evaluated for. This created some confusion during the conversation and may have also influenced how my experience and assignment were assessed. Expectation vs Reality of the Assignment During the discussion, I walked the interviewer through my assignment in detail, explaining my research, thought process, and design decisions. The assignment brief mentioned that the exercise would be collaborative, with a focus on understanding my design thinking and approach. Based on this, I initially understood that the work would be discussed and evolved together with the interviewer. However, the brief itself lacked clear direction or scope. It did not specify: What exactly needed to be designed Expected deliverables (e.g., number of screens or depth of exploration) Whether the focus was on visual design, UX thinking, or both The expected level of fidelity Because of this ambiguity, I did not initially approach it as a fully independent design task. It was only two days before the interview after I reached out to HR for clarification, that I was informed I needed to complete and present the design. Given this late clarification, I worked within a tight two-day window to build: A research-backed foundation A clear problem structure An initial design direction During the discussion, I also clarified that: The work presented was an initial direction Some aspects were still evolving Further iterations would naturally improve alignment I ensured I clearly articulated: My research approach The reasoning behind my decisions How the solution would evolve through iteration and collaboration However, in practice, the evaluation seemed to focus more on how closely the final design output aligned with the research, rather than on the thinking, approach, and problem-solving process—which was originally communicated as the focus. For a Lead role, I expected the evaluation to place greater emphasis on: Design thinking and approach Problem-solving ability Collaboration and iteration mindset Rather than expecting a fully refined and perfectly aligned solution within such a constrained and ambiguous setup. Single-Perspective Feedback I was informed that the decision was based on collective feedback. However, my assignment was only screen-shared during the interview and reviewed by a single interviewer. Since the work wasn’t shared more broadly, it was a bit unclear how a collective evaluation was formed. I genuinely enjoyed parts of the process and put a lot of effort into the assignment. I just feel that a bit more alignment in role expectations, clearer direction in the assignment, and an opportunity to fully discuss the thinking behind the work would have made the experience more balanced and reflective of my capabilities.