I interviewed for a Senior Product Designer role at Asurion and the experience raised serious concerns for me about the recruiter-screening process. The interview was a 30-minute recruiter phone screen. The discussion covered standard screening topics: my background, seniority, work authorization, salary expectations, education, interest in the role, and general experience in product design. Based on the conversation, the main requirements appeared aligned with my background, including UX strategy, service design, customer journeys, design systems, accessibility, research, analytics, commerce experience, and cross-functional work with product and engineering teams. Less than 24 hours later, I received a generic rejection email saying that, “after careful consideration,” Asurion had decided to move forward with another candidate whose experience more closely aligned with the role. That response did not make sense to me because there had been no hiring-manager conversation, no portfolio discussion with the design team, and no clear role-specific evaluation beyond the recruiter screen. I also asked deeper questions about the actual design work, but the recruiter was not able to fully answer them. That is understandable at the recruiter level, but it also reinforces why a senior-level product design candidate should not be screened out before speaking with someone who actually understands the product, design expectations, portfolio depth, service design scope, and strategic requirements of the role. As a Black candidate with strong qualifications, U.S. work authorization, a master’s degree, and relevant senior-level experience, the lack of transparency made me question how candidates are being evaluated before reaching the hiring manager. I understand being rejected after a real evaluation, but this process felt vague, rushed, and unclear.

The interview started via 2 phone screens with the manager and director of the team. The in-house HR was not very responsive and reply email very slow. It took a long time to set up the on-site interview. The interview process was average to meet with all different teams. Some of the team member were very nice but some of the team members didn't have very good attitude in the interview. No feedback after the interview and it's very diffcult to communicate afterward.