Candidates allege employers extract business strategies during interviews only to reject them without hiring.
A JOB interview is supposed to assess a candidate’s suitability, but many people say some conversations end up feeling more like free consultancy sessions than recruitment.
That perception has resurfaced after a user shared an experience that struck a chord with other job seekers on a recruitment platform.
In a post on Threads, the user claimed job seekers should avoid using the platform after what they described as an uncomfortable interview experience for a business development role.
According to the user, the office was located in a modest upstairs shophouse and gave an uneasy first impression, although they stressed that their main concern was what happened during the interview itself.
The user alleged that the interviewer spent much of the session asking highly specific questions about growing the business while taking detailed notes.
Rather than focusing on typical interview topics, the user felt the discussion centred on extracting practical ideas.
After later receiving a message informing them that they had been unsuccessful because their answers supposedly “didn’t align with the questions”, the user questioned the explanation.
“If the company ends up using my ideas in the future, I’ll expose them here,” the user wrote, arguing that the knowledge they shared had been built through years of study, overseas experience, workplace training and professional development.
The post prompted many others to recount similar experiences.
One netizen wrote: “You’d be surprised to know that even large companies do this.
“Some even make candidates complete assignments or mini projects, only to reject them afterwards.”
Another user, however, cautioned against judging businesses solely by their premises, explaining that their own start-up also began in a simple shophouse with just three staff members.
They added that requesting excessive business ideas from candidates without hiring them would still be inappropriate.
Others echoed the original concern.
One netizen claimed interviewers had repeatedly pressed their spouse for detailed information about work processes and suppliers before never responding again.
Another said an interview had felt like a step-by-step training session before it was abruptly ended.
“They’re clever at taking advantage of people,” one commenter alleged, claiming some interviews exist primarily to gather expertise rather than recruit.
While none of the claims has been independently verified, the conversation reflects growing scepticism among job seekers about where employers should draw the line between assessing competence and taking advantage of valuable knowledge during recruitment.
