Rethinking the Technical Interview

Technical interviews are notoriously draining for everyone involved. Candidates face mentally taxing puzzles, lengthy take-home assignments, and a series of interviews with various stakeholders. Hiring managers, meanwhile, often remain uncertain whether they have found the right person even after all that effort.

To explore how these processes can be improved, we gathered insights from a panel of experienced engineers and leaders: Dana Lawson, SVP of Engineering at Netlify; Kathy Korevec, VP of Product at Vercel; and Ian Douglas, Senior Developer Advocate at Postman. Their advice spans from what to drop entirely in interviews to how candidates can better prepare.

What to Do About the Whiteboard

Whiteboard interviews have long been a staple of technical hiring, but their value is heavily debated. The panel suggests that the medium matters less than the methodology and relevance of the problem being presented.

Whiteboarding itself is not inherently bad. Sketching out a system design or explaining a problem-solving approach on a board can be productive—the practice of handwriting syntactically correct code, however, is less useful. What you are really trying to evaluate is how a candidate thinks, not their ability to recall syntax under pressure.

The underlying principle is to focus on traits such as deep thinking and problem-solving. As long as that is the goal, the format—whiteboard, screen, or spoken conversation—is secondary. This also means the interview content must be directly relevant to the role. Arbitrary algorithmic puzzles that do not reflect the actual job should be avoided. For example, a candidate interviewing for an analytics team should be asked to work with data, not to solve a puzzle they will never face in their daily work. Tests tailored to specific team responsibilities let candidates demonstrate immediate value and allow you to judge a real, applicable skill set.

Looking Beyond the Board

There are numerous alternatives to whiteboards, but the interviewing process should not be one-size-fits-all. It is more equitable to offer candidates options so they can present their best work in a format they are comfortable with. Forcing a single method on everyone ignores the fact that a person’s preferred working style may differ. A candidate who is a brilliant programmer but uncomfortable with a particular exercise format should have another way to showcase their abilities. Time constraints are also a factor, as a lengthy take-home test may be impossible for working professionals or parents.

Several approaches, listed below, can prove effective:

  • Pair programming: Provides a direct look at how a candidate collaborates, communicates, and approaches day-to-day work. However, it can be intrusive for some candidates, so it is best used as one option among many.
  • Portfolio walkthroughs: Have candidates explain their past projects, the decisions they made, and the challenges they encountered. This is often less stressful than live coding.
  • Technical conversations: Discussing open source contributions or past work line-by-line can be just as revealing as an exercise. It also offers a better measurement of a candidate’s communication abilities.

It is generally wise to avoid extreme formats, such as multi-day paid "trial runs" where you observe a candidate working with your team for several days. While highly informative, they demand an enormous time commitment and are not an inclusive practice for those with other responsibilities.

How Candidates Should Prepare

Given the diverse range of interview formats, preparation is key. When practicing, do not jump directly into code. Instead, practice breaking down problems into smaller parts and writing pseudocode that outlines your planned approach. This "showing your work" is exactly what interviewers want to see, as it reveals your thought process and often leads to a better final solution.

Beyond technical practice, research the company thoroughly. Reach out to current employees to understand the interview process, talk to customers for genuine product feedback, and read reviews. Any specific data points you can bring into the conversation signal genuine interest. Additionally, reading company leadership’s blog posts or other written communication can offer insight into the values and culture, helping you decide how good a fit the company is for you.

Interviewer Red Flags and Best Practices

When evaluating a candidate, the panel noted specific warnings signs, including a lack of curiosity. Candidates should ask questions about the role, the technology, and the company. Conversely, a candidate who becomes immediately defensive when discussing a problem is also a point of caution.

Remote interviews have permanently changed the hiring landscape and require their own consideration. They also present new opportunities; for example, sharing a screen can give the interviewer a meaningful look at how a candidate uses their tools and works through a problem.

For candidates preparing for a remote interview, consider these practical points:

  • Prepare your environment: A tidy, neutral space with minimal distractions is essential.
  • Show up early: Join the call a few minutes ahead of time to troubleshoot any technical issues.
  • Stabilize your setup: Restart your computer and router ahead of time, and close all unnecessary applications.
  • Prioritize audio: Invest in a quality microphone, as clear audio is more important than video for a successful remote conversation.
  • Have a backup plan: Know how to join by phone if your primary connection fails.

On-Going Interview Improvements

Conducting a solid interview is a learnable skill. It is worth training your team and practicing with role-playing scenarios before meeting real candidates. Avoid falling into a routine where you run through a checklist during the interview rather than deep diving into the topics that truly matter. Also, focus on hiring managers finding people who fit the team well, and consider candidates may worry about a poor match just as much as you do.

A final and often controversial suggestion for interviewers is to offer feedback to candidates after a rejection. While some organizations strictly prohibit this, constructive feedback—especially for entry-level applicants—can be invaluable for their professional development, even if they did not get the job. The lack of a feedback loop leaves candidates unable to learn and improve from an exhausting process.