From LeetCode to Leadership: Fixing Broken Engineering Interviews

The traditional technical interview process is fundamentally flawed. Despite years of industry experience, many senior candidates are still subjected to algorithmic coding challenges that fail to reflect their actual job responsibilities. This talk explores the disconnect between coding interviews and real-world software engineering, analyzing why these outdated assessments persist and how they inadvertently favor candidates who excel at memorization rather than engineering expertise.

We begin by examining the misalignment between current hiring practices and the core competencies of experienced engineers. While coding challenges test algorithmic recall, they neglect critical skills such as code review, communication, and problem-solving within complex, ambiguous systems. The result is a hiring process that penalizes tenured specialists and favors those adept at test preparation.

Next, we investigate how these interview practices became entrenched. We trace their origins from early technical hiring strategies, highlighting their initial intent and unintended consequences. While structured rubrics were designed to reduce bias and standardize evaluation, they have led to an overemphasis on gamified problem-solving at the expense of holistic engineering assessment.

Finally, we propose alternative approaches that better align hiring with job performance. By emphasizing practical evaluations—such as reviewing real-world code, assessing system design, and evaluating collaborative skills—companies can more effectively identify high-impact senior engineers. This shift not only improves hiring outcomes but also enhances diversity and equity in technical recruitment.

This talk challenges the industry to rethink how we evaluate software engineers, advocating for hiring practices that prioritize genuine engineering excellence over artificial gatekeeping.