[planet-and-halo]

I think the issue is "a minute." You still feel pressured to get moving and keep talking, even if it buys you a little time. My favorite part of the job is whiteboarding with colleagues, but in an interview there is something that feels inherently adversarial about it. This isn't necessarily the fault of the interviewer either, it's just sort of baked into the format. There's a natural power discrepancy: the interviewer makes the final call, and they selected the problem to begin with, which means you can't possibly be on equal footing. That imbalance means you spend the whole time on the back foot. I'm not sure there's a better format available, but that's definitely an unnatural environment and can lead people including me to perform much differently than they do in a normal work environment. Unfortunately it may be the best we can do.

[bmitc]

I think the better format is to have the interviewee talk through a complex problem that they have already solved, whether it's a side project, a work project they can talk about, or whatever. It balances out the power imbalance, and it showcases how well the interviewee can explain and talk through problems, design decisions, what they learned, what worked, what didn't, etc. through a problem they are already familiar with.

These whiteboarding interviews where the interviewers pose some random question does nothing for either party.

[planet-and-halo]

I really like that approach. The tradeoff is that you're asking someone to spend a non-trivial amount of personal time prepping and it opens the door a bit more to BS'ing and just memorizing Stackoverflow or whatever. But presumably your interviewers are skilled enough to sniff that out. I personally feel that would be a better way to showcase my abilities.