Most engineers conduct interviews without formal training. They write coding problems on the spot, reuse LeetCode favorites, or copy questions from blog posts. The result: candidates who are good at puzzles pass while good engineers who write production code daily fail.
A better approach exists. It starts with understanding what you're actually trying to measure.
Key facts
- Questions should assess real-world skills relevant to the specific role
- Cultural clarity matters—avoid references that exclude candidates from different backgrounds
- Open-ended, progressive questions leak slower than standard problems
- Creating variations reduces risk when questions eventually leak
- Calibrate difficulty with teammates before live interviews
- Scoring rubrics prevent inconsistent evaluation
Start with skills, not problems
Before writing a single test case, define what the question should assess. A good question for a junior React developer won't work for a senior DevOps engineer. Think about what someone actually does in the role day-to-day.
Also consider the question's place in the interview. It's one of several tasks designed to give multiple perspectives on the candidate. Don't try to assess everything with one problem.
Avoid cultural assumptions
Put yourself in the position of someone with a completely different background. Would they understand references to specific sports, locations, or cultural events? Medical analogies might be technically clear but emotionally problematic for candidates who recently experienced health crises.
The goal is a clean problem that tests technical ability without introducing distractions.
Making questions leak-resistant
Accept that questions will eventually leak. The goal is to reduce damage and extend useful life.
Write open-ended, progressive questions with multiple valid approaches. Candidates can prepare, but they can't memorize the conversation flow. Follow-up questions adapt to their answers, keeping them off-balance productively.
Create variations. If you develop five versions of the same underlying problem, leaking one doesn't invalidate the others. Rotate versions across candidates.
Watermark questions with unique details that stand out. If you reference "pink toothpaste," you can search for that phrase and know immediately when your question appears on a forum.
Calibrate with teammates
Test your question with colleagues who match the experience level you're hiring for. They'll reveal whether the problem is solvable in the allotted time, what questions candidates ask, and where hints might be needed.
Without calibration, you risk either a trivial problem (everyone passes) or an impossible one (everyone fails). Neither provides useful signal.
Scoring rubrics matter
Decide in advance what you're rewarding. Is clean code worth more than brute force? How do you handle candidates who get the answer but take twice as long?
Rubrics reduce evaluator bias and make comparison across candidates more consistent. They also help candidates understand what success looks like.
Our analysis
Technical interviews are broken in most companies. LeetCode grinding has created a population of engineers excellent at algorithm puzzles and poor at writing maintainable code. Better questions take more effort to design but produce better hiring outcomes.
The real challenge is institutional: managers need to give interviewers time to write good questions and train them on evaluation. Most companies treat interviews as obligatory rather than critical.
Practical example
Instead of asking candidates to reverse a linked list (standard problem, easily memorized), describe a browser's back button functionality. How would you model a history stack? What happens when users open new tabs? The underlying data structure concept is the same, but the framing tests whether candidates can apply knowledge to new contexts.
Bottom line
Better interview questions require upfront investment but pay dividends in hiring quality. Focus on open-ended problems, calibrate with teammates, and accept that leaking is inevitable—plan to rotate and update questions regularly.
Frequently asked questions
Should I reuse interview questions across candidates?
Yes, but create multiple variations. Reusing questions enables calibration and comparison, but having alternatives prevents candidates who've seen questions from having an unfair advantage.
How do I assess system design skills in a short interview?
Use open-ended design discussions rather than coding problems. Ask candidates to sketch architectures, discuss trade-offs, and reason about scale. Focus on their thought process, not specific answers.
What if candidates object to interview coding problems?
Frame problems as collaboration, not tests. Let candidates ask clarifying questions. Emphasize that you're evaluating approach, not memorizing answers.
How do I prevent bias in scoring?
Use rubrics, score independently before discussing candidates, and train interviewers on common bias patterns. Multiple evaluators reduce individual bias.
Should take-home projects replace live coding?
They complement each other. Take-homes assess production-quality code; live coding assesses thinking process. Use both for senior roles where code quality matters heavily.