Technical Interviews Are Broken: What We Do Instead to Find Real Talent
Taher Pardawala November 14, 2025
Most technical interviews today rely on outdated methods like whiteboard coding, algorithm puzzles, and high-pressure timed tests. These approaches don’t reflect the actual work developers do. Instead of assessing skills like debugging, working with legacy code, or collaborating with teams, they focus on memorization and speed under stress. The result? Companies often hire candidates who excel in interviews but struggle with real tasks on the job.
What Works Better?
Instead of relying on traditional tests, companies are shifting to methods that evaluate practical skills and teamwork. Here are three better ways to assess developers:
- Project-Based Tests: Candidates complete tasks similar to real job responsibilities, like building features or fixing bugs. These tests allow candidates to use tools they’d work with daily and show their problem-solving approach.
- Pair Programming: Candidates work alongside team members to solve coding challenges. This highlights their communication skills, ability to take feedback, and teamwork.
- Live Code Contributions: Candidates make changes to a live or sandboxed codebase, demonstrating their ability to handle real-world challenges like system performance, code quality, and long-term maintenance.
Why These Methods Work
- They reflect actual job tasks, not theoretical problems.
- They assess collaboration, communication, and problem-solving.
- They reduce stress, allowing candidates to showcase their true abilities.
The Cost of Bad Hiring
A poor technical hire can cost companies $33,251 on average and take 50% longer to replace. Outdated hiring methods also contribute to rising technical debt, which cost U.S. businesses $1.52 trillion in 2022. Shifting to practical assessments helps avoid these costly mistakes while improving team performance.
Quick Comparison of Hiring Methods
| Method | Time | Skills Tested | Candidate Experience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whiteboard/Algorithm | 1-2 hours | Memorization, speed | High stress, unrealistic |
| Project-Based Tests | 3-5 days | Problem-solving, code quality | Realistic, comfortable |
| Pair Programming | 2-3 hours | Communication, teamwork | Interactive, collaborative |
| Live Code Contributions | 3-5 days | Ownership, system design | Hands-on, practical |
Rethinking the Technical Interview
Tough Interviews Can Lead to Bad Choices
When the interview is full of stress, most people just try to get through it. They do not show how they think or solve real problems. In this way, people who work fast under stress might get picked, but the real work needs slow, steady thinking and good choices.
Some people do great in hard interviews, but later they find it hard to keep up with the work, work alone, or work with a team. These mistakes often cost a lot because their weak spots only show up after you hire them and see them not do well over time.
Because of this, it is better to use new ways to choose who to hire, like having them work on small tasks, code with someone else, or solve a problem on the spot. These ways show more clearly what someone can do and how they really work in a team.
Way 1: Show Skills with a Real Task
Tests with real tasks are a fresh way to see what people can really do with code. These types of tests look at real problems and the way people work with others. Old tests may ask hard brain teasers or make you do things that do not match what you do at work. Real-task tests ask you to do work much like you would if you got the job. They look at what you need to do each day. This way, we see how you write code or solve problems with tools you will use at work. Now, let’s see what goes on with this test.
What Real-Task Tests Look Like
With this kind of test, you get jobs to do that you might see if you take the place. People do not ask odd things like, “Change this list fast,” but may ask you to build a new part or fix part of an app. You get many hours to work, so you have the time to show what you know and make good code.
The tools used are close to what you see at your desk. You use code editors, code files, testing tools, logs, and more to make your work. You might be told to add a new part, find and solve wrong bits, or start a new cool tool. After you make your change, the team may ask you to show and tell how you did it. This test looks and feels like the job, not like you are back at school.
Why This Test Works Well
Tests with tasks you might face at work show if you are fit for the job much more than old ways. You see how people solve issues in the kind of work space they would use if they got hired. It is not a talk or a hard math quiz. This gives both the team and the one who wants the job a much clearer look at how work is done each day and if you can fit in and do the work asked.
How New Teams Can Use Them
Small new teams find much good in these kind of tests. They can make a test that uses just their own code and style. This lets people see what work is truly like on that team. If you try the test, you feel how it is to work with their tools. The team sees if you know how to use what they use, and you see if you like how things run there. Both sides gain from this.
Method 2: Pair Programming for Team Skills
Pair programming is a hands-on way to evaluate both technical expertise and interpersonal abilities. By having candidates collaborate with team members to tackle realistic coding problems, you get a front-row seat to how they think, communicate, and work under pressure.
What Pair Programming Reveals
Sitting side by side (virtually or in person) to solve coding challenges offers insights you won’t get from traditional assessments. Candidates are encouraged to verbalize their thought process, showing how they approach complex problems. You can see how they choose data structures, balance efficiency, and write code that’s clean and easy to maintain.
This method is particularly effective for teams that already use pair or mob programming in their workflow. For example, consider a company where collaboration is baked into the process:
"A company that exclusively does pair, or mob programming, where engineers collaborate continuously, either in pairs or in larger groups, to write code together in real-time. This setup emphasizes real-time problem-solving, and constant ‘out loud’ communication." [1]
Pair programming also highlights how candidates handle feedback and share ideas. Some may find it challenging to code with someone watching, while others thrive in a collaborative setting, asking smart questions and offering thoughtful solutions. These sessions naturally bring clarity to how well a candidate communicates and works in a team.
Tips for Running Pair Programming Interviews
To make the most of these sessions, structure them around realistic problems that let candidates showcase their skills and teamwork. Whether conducted in person or remotely, preparation is key. Let candidates know ahead of time what type of problem they’ll be tackling so they can focus on demonstrating their abilities instead of guessing what’s expected.
During the session, keep an eye on specific behaviors:
- How well do they articulate their thought process?
- Do they suggest multiple solutions to a problem?
- Are they open to feedback and able to adjust their approach?
Why Small Teams Benefit the Most
For small teams or early-stage companies, pair programming can be a game-changer. In fast-moving environments, every hire plays a critical role in shaping team dynamics. You need someone who can hit the ground running and collaborate effectively from day one.
These sessions help gauge how candidates perform under pressure, whether they’re debugging on the fly or quickly implementing new features. Just as importantly, they reveal whether the candidate’s working style fits with a culture that prioritizes open communication and teamwork.
sbb-itb-51b9a02
Method 3: Live Code Contributions and Ownership
After project tests and pair programming, live code contributions provide a deeper look into a developer’s ability to handle real-world responsibilities. This method goes beyond hypothetical exercises, showing how candidates manage the challenges of working with production systems.
Why Code Ownership Is Important
When developers work on live systems, their decisions carry weight. A poorly optimized database query can slow down the entire application. A missed security detail can put sensitive user data at risk. These situations highlight how candidates approach code quality, system performance, and long-term maintenance.
Code ownership isn’t just about writing functional code. It’s about understanding how changes ripple through the system, considering performance trade-offs, and ensuring the code is clear enough for others to work with later. Developers who take ownership think ahead – they account for edge cases, plan for errors, and document their work, knowing that someone might need to debug their code during an emergency.
This mindset is especially crucial for startups, where every line of code has consequences. Early-stage companies can’t afford the burden of technical debt caused by quick fixes or shortsighted decisions. Testing candidates in live environments helps identify those who naturally think about the bigger picture. Once ownership is clear, the next step is testing their practical skills.
Testing in Live Systems
To evaluate candidates effectively, assign focused and manageable tasks that let them demonstrate their skills without putting your production environment at risk. These tasks should be small, well-defined, and have clear success criteria.
Examples include:
- Implementing an API endpoint
- Optimizing a slow-running query
- Adding a feature flag
These assignments require candidates to understand your existing codebase, make thoughtful design choices, and ensure their changes integrate seamlessly.
The evaluation period should be a trial project lasting 3-5 days. This gives candidates enough time to showcase their abilities while keeping the process reasonable. During this trial, observe how they ask questions, clarify requirements, and communicate updates. Pay close attention to whether they write tests, update documentation, and consider how their changes might impact other parts of the system. These behaviors indicate whether they approach the task as an owner or just a contributor.
To protect your systems during these tests, safeguards are essential.
Keeping Systems Safe During Live Tests
Live code evaluations require strict measures to ensure your production systems and data remain secure. Start by setting up isolated development environments that mimic your production setup but use anonymized or synthetic data.
Here are some key precautions:
- Access controls: Limit candidate access to specific parts of the codebase, databases, and system resources.
- Feature flags or branch-based deployments: Allow you to isolate and roll back changes easily.
- Monitoring tools: Set up alerts to catch performance issues or unexpected behavior quickly.
Candidates should have access to the tools they need but should not be able to view sensitive customer data, financial information, or critical system settings. Use sandbox environments and establish clear testing guidelines to maintain control.
Additionally, consider using time-limited access tokens and automated cleanup processes to reset test environments after each evaluation. This ensures a clean slate for every candidate and protects system integrity.
Comparison: Old vs New Hiring Methods
The gap between traditional technical interviews and modern hiring practices is hard to ignore. Traditional methods often focus on rote memorization, while newer approaches emphasize practical problem-solving and collaboration – skills that matter more in real-world development.
Here’s why this shift is urgent: A bad technical hire costs companies an average of $33,251 and takes 50% longer to replace [5]. On top of that, replacing an employee can cost 6-9 months of their salary, making every hiring decision a high-stakes game [5]. These financial realities highlight the flaws in outdated hiring methods.
Take whiteboard interviews, for example. These traditional tests often measure how well candidates handle stress and anxiety rather than their actual programming abilities. Candidates are expected to solve algorithmic puzzles under intense scrutiny, which rarely mirrors the real work environment.
Modern methods like project-based assessments, pair programming, and live code contributions paint a very different picture. These approaches replicate real workflows, allowing candidates to use their own tools, reference documentation, and collaborate naturally. This setup showcases how developers tackle system design, debugging, and long-term code maintainability. Not only do these methods improve the hiring process, but they also contribute to better overall business outcomes.
The numbers don’t lie. Poor software quality cost U.S. businesses $2.41 trillion in 2022, with bad architectural decisions due to poor hiring contributing $1.52 trillion in technical debt [7]. These staggering figures make it clear: hiring processes need to focus on real-world skills.
Let’s break it down further with a side-by-side comparison:
Comparison Table: Key Metrics for Each Method
| Method | Time | Cost | Accuracy | Skills Assessed | Candidate Experience |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whiteboard/Algorithm Tests | 1-2 hours | Low upfront | Poor predictor of job performance [3][6] | Memory, syntax, speed [3][6] | High stress, anxiety-inducing [2][3] |
| Project-Based Tests | 3-5 days | Medium | Strong predictor of practical skills [3][5] | Problem-solving, architecture, code quality [3][4] | Comfortable, realistic environment [3][4] |
| Pair Programming | 2-3 hours | Low-Medium | Good for team fit assessment [3][5] | Communication, collaboration, real-time thinking [3][4] | Interactive, less pressure [3][4] |
| Live Code Contributions | 3-5 days | High | Excellent for ownership mindset [3][5] | System integration, maintenance, business context [3][4] | Authentic work experience [3][4] |
Traditional methods also face credibility challenges. For instance, 40% of candidates exaggerate their credentials, and 75% of new college hires underperform [6]. Whiteboard interviews are ill-equipped to detect resume padding or assess how well candidates can apply their skills to real-world challenges.
In contrast, modern hiring approaches create a sense of psychological safety, allowing candidates to showcase their true abilities. Instead of testing who can handle artificial stress, these methods identify developers who focus on code maintainability, system performance, and effective team collaboration.
For startups, this evolution in hiring is especially critical. Early-stage companies need developers who take ownership of their work and think about long-term impacts. Candidates who demonstrate these qualities in realistic assessments are more likely to deliver clean, well-documented code when it counts.
Ultimately, the shift from traditional to modern hiring methods marks a move from testing theoretical knowledge to evaluating practical skills. While whiteboard interviews might highlight algorithmic thinkers, they often miss candidates who excel at the day-to-day work that drives business success. Adopting these modern techniques can help startups build stronger teams and set the stage for long-term growth.
Building a Mixed Hiring Process for Startups
Once you’ve rethought how to evaluate candidates, the next step is weaving those new methods into a well-rounded hiring process. By leaning on data-driven insights, you can fine-tune your approach and see better results. The key? Keep an eye on the numbers and adjust as you go.
Tracking Your Hiring Process Results
To improve your hiring strategy over time, track both pre-hire and post-hire metrics. Pre-hire data might include things like how effective your sourcing channels are or how long it takes to fill a position. Post-hire metrics, on the other hand, could focus on retention rates or how well new hires perform on the job [8][9]. Combining these insights with hands-on assessment methods creates a process that better identifies candidates with real potential.
Conclusion: Better Hiring for Long-Term Success
The hiring methods we’ve discussed – project-based tests, pair programming, and live code contributions – are designed to help you find developers who deliver real-world results. Traditional technical interviews, on the other hand, are costing U.S. businesses billions in lost quality and growing technical debt. With the average cost of a bad technical hire sitting at $33,251 per mistake[5], and technical roles taking 50% longer to fill than other positions[5], it’s clear that a shift in approach is overdue.
"The most expensive line of code is the one written by the wrong developer." – Full Scale[5]
These alternative methods focus on evaluating how candidates think, collaborate, and solve practical problems, rather than testing their ability to recall algorithms that rarely come into play in daily development work.
Key Points for Startups and Founders
Prioritize practical skills over puzzle-solving.
Your engineering team needs developers who can build and deliver products – not just solve whiteboard challenges. Project-based tests give you a window into how candidates approach real-world tasks, while pair programming highlights their communication and teamwork abilities.
Define what matters for your team.
Pinpoint the traits that make an engineer successful within your organization. Use insights from performance reviews and project retrospectives to identify qualities like code quality, effective pull request reviews, mentoring capabilities, and logical problem-solving[1].
Align interview performance with job success.
Introduce 30/60/90-day checkpoints to compare candidates’ interview performance with their on-the-job contributions. This feedback loop not only fine-tunes your hiring process but also helps measure its return on investment[5].
Standardize to reduce bias.
Adopt data-driven decision frameworks to ensure your assessments are fair, job-related, and consistent across interviewers[10]. This approach minimizes bias and strengthens the reliability of your hiring process.
By focusing on these strategies, you’ll not only improve your hiring outcomes but also set your team up for long-term success.
Long-Term Benefits of Smarter Hiring
Refining your hiring process has ripple effects that go well beyond avoiding a bad hire. With 41% of companies estimating that a single bad hire costs more than $25,000, and replacing an employee taking 6–9 months of their salary[5], the financial benefits of better assessment methods are undeniable.
Stronger hiring practices lead to engineering teams that deliver higher-quality products more efficiently. By selecting developers who excel in problem-solving and collaboration, you’re building a technical culture that’s agile, resilient, and ready to thrive over the long haul.
To maintain this edge, regularly review your interview process against actual performance data. Update your evaluation criteria as technologies evolve and team needs shift. This ongoing refinement ensures your hiring strategy continues to drive success well into the future.
FAQs
Why are project-based assessments a better way to evaluate a developer’s skills than traditional technical interviews?
Project-based assessments offer a practical and well-rounded approach to evaluating a developer’s skills. Unlike conventional technical interviews that often emphasize theoretical concepts or abstract problem-solving, these assessments mirror the kind of tasks developers face in their day-to-day work.
Through real projects, candidates showcase not just their coding abilities but also their problem-solving strategies and knack for writing clean, maintainable code. Beyond technical skills, this approach provides insight into how they handle challenges, collaborate with others, manage their time, and take responsibility for their work – all essential traits for thriving in real-world engineering roles.
How does pair programming benefit both candidates and hiring teams during technical interviews?
Pair programming creates a valuable space to assess a candidate’s skills in a hands-on, collaborative environment. For candidates, it’s a chance to demonstrate their coding expertise, problem-solving approach, and communication style in a setting that feels more natural and less intimidating than traditional whiteboard tests. Plus, it gives them a glimpse into the team’s workflow and culture.
For hiring teams, pair programming reveals how candidates tackle challenges, respond to feedback, and work alongside others. It’s not just about technical know-how – it’s also a way to evaluate interpersonal skills and how well someone might integrate into the team. This method offers a well-rounded view of a candidate’s potential, leading to stronger and more informed hiring decisions.
How can companies safely use live coding tasks in interviews without risking system security?
To maintain system security during live coding interviews, it’s crucial to use isolated environments like sandboxes or virtual machines. These setups let candidates demonstrate their skills without exposing sensitive production systems or data.
It’s also wise to restrict access to only the resources required for the task and enforce strict permission settings. Regular reviews and updates of these environments help address any vulnerabilities that might arise. This not only safeguards your systems but also ensures a controlled and equitable setting for candidates to showcase their expertise.
Leave a Reply