3 mins read
Over the past few weeks, I’ve interviewed with a handful of companies (from startups to SMBs and public institutions.) Through these experiences, I’ve developed a clearer view of what an ideal technical interview format should look like.
Evaluating a software engineer’s technical skillset within a limited amount of time is a fairly difficult task. In this short post, I’ll specifically focus on the step where candidates are expected to demonstrate their technical skills — excluding HR screening and team-fit interviews.
Arguably, the most common format companies rely on is the home-assignment coding challenge, where
candidates are asked to solve a programming puzzle and/or answer additional multiple choice
questions. While this format can be relevant for certain roles, it’s often a poor and low-effort
strategy. In many cases, it reflects a lack of creativity or investment from hiring teams, rather
than a genuine attempt to evaluate real-world skills.
Unless it clearly aligns with the role, it
should come as a red flag it may be worth reconsidering your application.
Good technical interviews are thoughtful
When candidates invest time and effort into learning about a company, understanding its tech stack, its culture, and values, it’s only fair to expect the same level of care from recruiters — especially in how they craft and evaluate the technical interview step.
That is the reason why technical interviews should reflect genuineness and authenticity. A well-designed, original task signals engagement from the company. In turn, serious candidates feel more valued, and are more likely to develop a deeper interest in the role and the team.
When conducted well, technical interviews should foster side-discussions, encourage questions, and allow for digressions — off-topic but still tech-related — that can offer a better grasp of the person being interviewed.
Good technical interviews are relevant
Similarly, an ideal technical interview should closely reflect the actual work expected in the role. We often see one-size-fits-all abstract puzzles or classical DSA challenges that are largely irrelevant for the position. This choice has two disadvantages:
- It values profiles with strong theoretical backgrounds — or those with a great ability to recall textbook algorithms — over profiles with hands-on experience.
- It fails to evaluate candidates against real-world scenarios (unless the role involves a significant amount of algorithmic work.)
As a recruiter, this doesn’t mean DSA knowledge isn’t something to gauge during the process. Depending on the position being applied for (software engineering is a very broad domain), you should adjust the slider to ensure candidates have a decent background with regards to the job. From a recruiter’s standpoint, it’s also a chance to explore a candidante’s understanding of programming concepts through the use of a specific language.
I tend to believe that a good technical interview should be an opportunity for candidates to get a realistic foretaste of the daily challenges they’ll likely face. When done right, it becomes a meaningful exchange: the company assesses the candidate’s fit, and the candidate gains insight of the work culture and expectations.
Good technical interviews should contain some elements of surprise
“Elements of surprise” might seem not quite appropriate in this context. However, good technical interviews shouldn’t be close-ended discussions leading to a rigidly scoped evaluation grid. In fact, deliberately introducing ambiguity, including some unclear instructions or benign errors can reveal a lot about a candidate.
Because in real-world engineering, specs are rarely complete, requirements shift, documentations are often incomplete or outdated. This isn’t about tricking the candidate. Instead, observing how they react during this realistic scenario — whether they ask clarifying questions (this should be encouraged beforehand in the assigment instructions), or challenge assumptions — it’s about evaluating their critical thinking abilities, collaborative behavior, and adaptability; the qualities that often make the difference between a good engineer and a great one.
Conclusion
Designing good technical interviews is not about adding complexity — it’s about creativity, realism, and relevance that signal respect for the candidate’s time and experience. In return, they attract stronger, more motivated applicants who are eager to contribute for the right reasons.