There's something deeply flawed about how we hire software engineers today.

Picture this: A talented developer who builds complex systems at work sits nervously in an interview room, being asked to reverse a linked list on a whiteboard. Their hands shake as they try to remember an algorithm they haven't used since college—and may never use again in their actual job.

The LeetCode Problem

The tech industry has developed an odd obsession with algorithmic puzzles. These interview questions have become a standardized test of sorts—one that candidates frantically prepare for by grinding through hundreds of practice problems on sites like LeetCode.

But here's the thing: most software engineers don't spend their days inverting binary trees or implementing quicksort from scratch. They're debugging complex systems, collaborating with teammates, understanding business requirements, and writing maintainable code that others can work with.

When was the last time you had to implement a breadth-first search algorithm from memory at work? For most engineers, the answer is "never"—because we have libraries, documentation, and Google for that.

What We Should Be Testing Instead

Real software engineering is about solving problems within constraints. It's about:

Understanding requirements and asking clarifying questions

Breaking down complex problems into manageable pieces

Writing code that other humans can read and maintain

Knowing when to use existing solutions versus building your own

Collaborating effectively with a team

None of these skills are meaningfully tested by algorithmic puzzles or whiteboard coding sessions.

A Better Way Forward

Some companies are starting to get it right. Take-home projects that mirror real work, pair programming on actual codebase issues, and discussions about past projects can reveal far more about a candidate's abilities than whether they've memorized the optimal solution to a contrived problem.

The best interviews I've experienced feel like collaborative work sessions—because that's what the job actually is. They test how you think, communicate, and approach problems, not how well you've crammed for a coding exam.

Why This Matters

When we hire based on puzzle-solving abilities, we create teams that are good at... solving puzzles. We also systematically filter out talented engineers who don't excel at this specific skill but would otherwise make exceptional team members.

This hiring approach hurts diversity too. It favors those with the time and resources to practice these specific types of problems, often excluding people with family responsibilities or those who can't afford to spend weeks preparing for interviews.

Time for Change

If you're involved in hiring engineers, I challenge you to examine your process. Are you testing for skills that actually matter in the role? Or are you perpetuating an industry ritual that's more tradition than practical assessment?

The best engineers I know aren't necessarily the ones who can solve a dynamic programming problem in five minutes. They're the ones who can navigate complex systems, communicate clearly, and build solutions that last.

Isn't it time our hiring processes reflected that reality?