Hiring Software Engineers: Technical Assessment Best Practices

Technical interviews are broken. Most companies test the wrong skills and lose great candidates to flawed processes. Whiteboard coding bears little resemblance to actual software engineering. Memorizing algorithms doesn't predict job performance. Here's how to assess engineering talent practically while creating positive candidate experiences that strengthen your employer brand.

Why Traditional Technical Interviews Fail

The standard technical interview—solving algorithmic puzzles on a whiteboard under time pressure while strangers watch—has serious problems:

• Not representative of real work: Engineers rarely reverse binary trees or implement sorting algorithms from scratch. They use libraries, search Stack Overflow, and collaborate with teammates.
• High anxiety environment: Performance anxiety tanks problem-solving ability. Candidates who'd excel in normal work situations freeze under artificial pressure.
• Rewards memorization over thinking: LeetCode grinding helps you pass interviews but doesn't correlate with engineering excellence.
• Introduces bias: Whiteboard interviews favor candidates from CS programs that emphasize algorithms, disadvantaging self-taught engineers and bootcamp grads with practical skills.
• Poor candidate experience: Engineers hate algorithmic interviews. Bad experiences damage your employer brand and reduce offer acceptance.

What Good Technical Assessment Looks Like

Effective technical assessment evaluates skills engineers actually need:

• Problem decomposition and system design thinking
• Code quality, readability, and maintainability
• Debugging and troubleshooting ability
• Communication and collaboration skills
• Learning agility when facing unfamiliar problems
• Trade-off analysis and technical decision-making

Assessment Method 1: Practical Take-Home Projects

What it is: Assign a small project (4-6 hours max) that mimics real work. For a backend role, build a REST API with specific endpoints. For frontend, implement a UI component with defined functionality.

Advantages:

• Candidates work in their own environment with their tools
• No artificial time pressure—demonstrates actual work quality
• Reveals code organization, documentation, testing practices
• Shows how candidates approach open-ended problems

Best practices:

• Pay for time: Respect candidates' time with $200-$500 compensation for projects over 4 hours
• Define scope clearly: Provide specific requirements, success criteria, and time expectations
• Make it relevant: Use real problems your team faces, not contrived puzzles
• Allow flexibility: Let candidates choose languages and frameworks they're comfortable with
• Review thoughtfully: Evaluate architecture, code quality, testing, and documentation—not just correctness

Assessment Method 2: Pair Programming Sessions

What it is: Engineer and candidate work together on a real problem or feature for 60-90 minutes. Collaborative coding, not watching someone struggle alone.

What to evaluate:

• Communication: Can they articulate their thinking clearly? Ask good questions? Explain trade-offs?
• Collaboration: Do they listen to suggestions? Incorporate feedback? Work well with others?
• Problem-solving approach: Do they break problems into steps? Test assumptions? Debug systematically?
• Technical skills: Are they proficient with their tools? Write clean code? Use appropriate patterns?

Best practices:

• Work on an actual feature or bug fix, not a contrived problem
• Let candidates drive—offer hints if they're stuck, but don't take over
• Allow use of documentation, Stack Overflow, and Google (like real work)
• Focus on thought process, not perfect solutions

Assessment Method 3: Code Review Exercises

What it is: Present a pull request with intentional issues—bugs, security vulnerabilities, poor design patterns. Ask candidates to review it as they would a teammate's code.

What this reveals:

• Can they spot bugs, security issues, and performance problems?
• Do they identify design pattern violations and technical debt?
• How do they communicate feedback—constructively or confrontationally?
• Do they balance perfectionism with pragmatism?

Code review is a critical skill for senior engineers. This exercise tests it directly.

Assessment Method 4: System Design for Senior Roles

What it is: For senior and staff engineers, present a system design problem: "Design a URL shortening service like Bitly that handles 10M requests/day."

What to evaluate:

• Requirements gathering: Do they ask clarifying questions before jumping to solutions?
• Trade-off analysis: Can they explain pros/cons of different architectural choices?
• Scalability thinking: Do they consider performance, availability, and cost at scale?
• Technology selection: Can they justify database, caching, and infrastructure choices?
• Communication: Can they explain complex systems clearly to non-technical stakeholders?

Best practices:

• Use real problems relevant to your domain
• Allow 45-60 minutes for design discussion
• Focus on thought process, not memorized solutions
• Ask follow-up questions to probe deeper: "What happens if the database fails?" "How would you monitor this?"

Creating Positive Candidate Experiences

Technical assessment isn't just about evaluating candidates—it's about selling them on your company. Great candidate experiences include:

• Transparent process: Share interview structure, what you're evaluating, and timeline upfront
• Respect for time: Keep total interview time under 4-5 hours. Don't do 8-hour onsite marathons.
• Timely feedback: Respond within 48 hours at every stage. Ghosting candidates damages your brand.
• Two-way conversation: Let candidates ask questions. Show what makes your team special.
• Realistic problems: Use challenges that reflect actual work, not brain teasers
• Supportive atmosphere: Interviews should be collaborative, not adversarial

Putting It All Together: A Sample Interview Process

Here's an effective technical interview process:

Stage 1: Resume Screen (30 minutes)
Review portfolio, GitHub, and previous work. Look for demonstrated skills, not just credentials.

Stage 2: Phone Screen (30-45 minutes)
Brief technical discussion about previous projects, problem-solving approaches, and communication skills. Not a coding test—just conversation.

Stage 3: Take-Home Project (4-6 hours, paid)
Practical coding project relevant to the role. Candidates have a week to complete it.

Stage 4: Virtual Interview (2-3 hours total)
- Project review and discussion (45 minutes)
- Pair programming session (60 minutes)
- Team fit conversation (45 minutes)

Stage 5: Final Interview (Optional, for senior roles)
System design discussion (60 minutes) with engineering leadership

Total time investment: 8-10 hours over 2-3 weeks. Efficient, respectful, and effective.