Instead of asking hypothetical questions, present senior candidates with a real, complex problem your business is currently facing. The worst case is free consulting; the best case is finding someone who can implement the solution they devise.
Instead of just sending a resume, prove your value upfront by delivering something tangible and useful. This could be a report on a website bug, an analysis of API documentation, or a suggested performance improvement. This 'helping' act immediately shifts the dynamic from applicant to proactive contributor.
When hiring senior engineers, the crucial test is whether they can build. This means assessing their ability to take a real-world business problem—like designing a warehouse system—and translate it into a tangible technical solution. This skill separates true builders from theoretical programmers.
With LLMs making remote coding tests unreliable, the new standard is face-to-face interviews focused on practical problems. Instead of abstract algorithms, candidates are asked to fix failing tests or debug code, assessing their real-world problem-solving skills which are much harder to fake.
A common hiring mistake is prioritizing a conversational 'vibe check' over assessing actual skills. A much better approach is to give candidates a project that simulates the job's core responsibilities, providing a direct and clean signal of their capabilities.
Ditch standard FANG interview questions. Instead, ask candidates to describe a messy but valuable project they shipped. The best candidates will tell an authentic, automatic story with personal anecdotes. Their fluency and detail reveal true experience, whereas hesitation or generic answers expose a lack of depth.
For high-level leadership roles, skip hypothetical case studies. Instead, present candidates with your company's actual, current problems. The worst-case scenario is free, high-quality consulting. The best case is finding someone who can not only devise a solution but also implement it, making the interview process far more valuable.
Ineffective interviews try to catch candidates failing. A better approach models a collaborative rally: see how they handle challenging questions and if they can return the ball effectively. The goal is to simulate real-world problem-solving, not just grill them under pressure.
Instead of a traditional interview, Parker Conrad sends candidates his investor materials beforehand. The first meeting is dedicated to their questions. He finds that the quality, depth, and skepticism of their questions is the best predictor of success, as it simulates the actual working relationship.
Senior executives are, by definition, excellent at interviewing, making the process unreliable for signal. Instead of relying on a polished performance, ask to see the 360-degree performance reviews from their previous company. This provides a more honest, ground-truth assessment of their strengths and weaknesses.
Strong engineering teams are built by interviews that test a candidate's ability to reason about trade-offs and assimilate new information quickly. Interviews focused on recalling past experiences or mindsets that can be passed with enough practice do not effectively filter for high mental acuity and problem-solving skills.