[dheera]

I think part of the problem is interviewers at companies are (a) not properly trained to be interviewers, just pulled from their jobs and asked to interview some candidate on short notice (b) funneled into a certain way of interviewing that isn't optimal.

Large companies have almost always given me the traditional "coding a whiteboard" interview and nitpicked for the whole hour at things that would be irrelevant for the job. Many interviewers approached me with an attitude of "I'm smarter than you and I need to figure out at what point I can outsmart you" rather than trying to discover "How are your abilities complimentary and useful to the team" i.e. "What do you do well that my colleagues and I don't do well, or could use help on".

[planet-and-halo]

This was basically my experience on both sides of the process (with a major exception when I interviewed for my current job). I learned from both. On the interviewer side, I sat down and wrote out a framework for how to do a good interview since nobody ever gave me one and I was initially flying blind. (What am I looking for in the person who will do the role? How should I break up the time to check and validate those things?) On the interviewee side, I basically just decided any hiring manager that tries to make you feel bad/stupid almost certainly isn't worth working for. I complete those interviews and try to use them as a learning experience, and I try to exhibit grace in the face of rudeness, then I just move on with my life. It's not always pleasant and required some self-control, but I figure it's a good skill to have on its own.