The Evolution of Technical Interviews: Examining the Leetcode Phenomenon

I still remember a time when algorithm-focused technical interviews were less common, and then, rather suddenly, they became the industry standard. Even for roles that have little connection to algorithmic problem-solving, it seems that most technology companies have converged around the idea that candidates must first demonstrate their coding abilities through structured technical exercises during interviews.

Intentions vs. Outcomes #

The challenge with the algorithm-based interview approach is the gap between its intent and its actual results. The goal of these interviews is to assess whether a candidate can effectively write quality software in a professional environment. It’s designed to identify individuals with genuine programming abilities and filter out those who might struggle with technical implementation.

The outcome, however, is that these interviews have evolved into somewhat arbitrary exercises that may not correlate strongly with on-the-job performance. The evaluation often has as much to do with interpersonal dynamics and presentation as it does with technical skill assessment.

The Interviewer Experience #

I’ve been on both sides of the interview table, and there’s certainly a satisfaction in posing challenging problems and evaluating solutions. However, this dynamic creates an inherent power asymmetry that can influence the assessment process in ways unrelated to the candidate’s technical capabilities.

Exploring Alternatives #

The question naturally arises: what might serve as a better alternative? Some organizations implement take-home projects instead of time-constrained interviews, while others use code presentations or architectural discussions. Each approach has its strengths and limitations, and none perfectly addresses the core challenge of predicting job performance.

Part of the underlying issue may be the inherent nature of interviews as exercises in power dynamics. The candidate typically occupies a position of lower influence, while the interviewer holds greater authority. This arrangement can sometimes lead to evaluations based on interpersonal chemistry rather than objective technical assessment.

Industry Perspectives #

Many professionals in the technology community have expressed concerns about algorithm-focused interviews, with a common sentiment that these exercises may not accurately predict how effective someone will be in an actual work environment. Yet simultaneously, there’s a genuine need for some method to evaluate technical capabilities before making hiring decisions.

Some companies have attempted to make technical assessments more objective through standardized testing with calibrated evaluation criteria. While these approaches may offer improvements, hiring decisions often still incorporate significant subjective elements.

Finding Balance #

The ideal technical interview might balance several priorities:

• Creating an environment where candidates can showcase their authentic abilities
• Evaluating skills that genuinely correlate with job responsibilities
• Minimizing power dynamics that can distort assessment
• Maintaining efficiency in the hiring process

While no perfect solution exists, continued evolution in hiring practices and greater awareness of these dynamics can help organizations build more effective, diverse, and talented engineering teams.