[OmarShehata]

I also love this attitude but I disagree about this negative effect you're talking about in reusing problems.

What happens in practice is the interviewer compares candidates answers to each other, not to his/her own way of solving it. It doesn't matter what whether the solution is "obvious" to the interviewer. If I hired someone who only did OK on this question and they ended up being a great engineer (and that happened multiple times) that lowers the bar for the test (or tells me it's not a very good test etc)

[musingsole]

You're missing the part where the interviewer is changing with each interview (and the rest of their life in general). They phrase the problem differently, get anxious as the interviewee approaches different parts of the task. So, the interviewer thinks they're giving the same test and can fairly compare the outcomes. The GP's point is that's just not true

Whether it works out to be a harder or easier interview over time because of these changes probably depends on the individual interviewer.

[johnm]

Sorry but the pointed out problem is both way more commoin and way way more of an issue. Interviewers talk about "I just want to see how someone thinks" but the implicit biases and the overuse of problems leads to unconscious expectation setting and rigidity in the interviewers. In fact, I explicitly test for this by giving valid answers using e.g., techniques that I don't think the interviewer is familiar with precisely to see how open minded the interviewers actually are. Their response is amazingly revealing about the interviewer and the organization behind them.

[yowlingcat]

> What happens in practice is the interviewer compares candidates answers to each other, not to his/her own way of solving it.

I think that's _ideally_ what happens in practice. But as sibling comments mention, is that what happens in practice?

Interview fatigue is very real. Many interviewers are not positively incentivized to put in the substantial amount of effort to conduct a quality interview. It's something that is simply thrown on top of their usual workload. Come promotion time, there's no reward for doing it well. But, there is punishment for noticeably "screwing it up". Often, that means that interviewers put in the bare minimum effort with interviewing (as with other tasks) to not get punished.

I've seen competent leaders avoid this in the past by emphasizing that interviewing is the most highly leveraged thing you can do for your organization and your own career, because you are step-function increasing the effectiveness and capability of your own team if you do it right. But in order for that to happen, there needs to be a real culture of working as a team and not just a disembodied group of ICs: a culture which rewards increasing the effectiveness of the team (instead of merely focusing on ones own tasks) and doesn't just pay lip service to it. It's tricky. But I think the subthread GP's approach is a clever and creative kind of a lateral thinking that shows how to do just that.