I like to partition companies with products that gain traction into two groups. In the first group are technically mediodcre founders who cobbled together a product that's almost unmaintainable. The second group consists of relatively experienced founders who cobbled together a product that's maintainable.
The two groups use distinct interview styles. Since the group with nearly unmaintainable code has many more members than the latter we see their interview style far more often. This is the familiar all-day brain teaser and relentless quizzing interview style. This interview style makes sense for these companies because they need warm bodies to throw at legacy codebases. The quality to seek in employees is perseverance and obedience. And this familiar interview style tests for just that.
The second group of companies uses the more thoughtful interview style. The founders value insight, creativity, and experience more than obedience. Hence their interview style focuses on these qualities.
> The quality to seek in employees is perseverance and obedience. And this familiar interview style tests for just that.
I know some actual interviewers who ask these types of CS heavy, puzzle based, brainteaser type of questions. They say that their rationale for asking questions like this is to gauge the candidate's attitude and to see how they behaviorally respond when presented with this kind of problems. In many ways, they are testing for submission in candidates. Basically, if you up and leave when asked how many manhole covers there are in New York, their system worked perfectly: they weeded out a candidate who they think would be an entitled prima donna. Corporate environments often require foot soldiers who will do the job without complaining, hence the testing for absolute obedience.
I disagree with this tactic but unfortunately it is quite widely employed during the selection process.
If the bar for "absolute obedience" is not storming out of the room when asked a dumb question, then yay for absolute obedience.
Someone who really was the superstar candidate who shouldn't be bothered to answer pointless riddles would surely have the communication skills to tactfully change the subject to how they're the best candidate for the job.
The two groups use distinct interview styles. Since the group with nearly unmaintainable code has many more members than the latter we see their interview style far more often. This is the familiar all-day brain teaser and relentless quizzing interview style. This interview style makes sense for these companies because they need warm bodies to throw at legacy codebases. The quality to seek in employees is perseverance and obedience. And this familiar interview style tests for just that.
The second group of companies uses the more thoughtful interview style. The founders value insight, creativity, and experience more than obedience. Hence their interview style focuses on these qualities.