The Return to the "Status Quo" and the Fear of Evolution
There is a clear movement, spearheaded by many companies, trying to turn back the clock to pre-2020 management standards. Whether it is driven by a leadership insecurity that teams lose productivity outside the office, or a blind attachment to old-school control methodologies, the direct reflection of this appears right at the front door: hiring.
Technical requirements in job postings have skyrocketed, yet evaluation methods remain frozen in the past. Instead of testing an engineer's actual capability to solve business problems and architect sustainable solutions, companies hide behind psychological barriers and dynamics that test everything except the daily competencies of the profession.
AI: A Productivity Tool or an Excuse for Layoffs?
Another factor that completely shook up the board was the rise of generative Artificial Intelligence. AI was supposed to be the ultimate tool for assistance, automating repetitive tasks, and boosting efficiency for the developer.
However, major corporations took a short-sighted approach. Instead of using technology to amplify the technical capacity of their teams, many opted to slash baseline positions and freeze hiring, erroneously believing that language models can replace human judgment, architectural savvy, and real-world experience.
The result? Fewer jobs in the market and crushing pressure on anyone trying to break in or stay relevant, regardless of their stack.
The Reality of Interview Processes: Textbook Theory vs. Real Code
To illustrate the massive disconnect between HR, management, and software engineering, here are two real examples from interview processes I went through recently.
Example 1: The Academic Interrogation
A technical interview that should have been a mature, peer-to-peer discussion between professionals turned into a college oral exam. The interviewer acted like an academic professor trying to trick their students.
They asked extremely theoretical questions, focused on memorizing concepts that any senior developer looks up in the documentation in five seconds when they actually need to implement it.
It evaluated rote memorization under pressure, not real performance in a day-to-day work environment.
Example 2: The Live Coding Logic Test
In another process, the scenario was even more chaotic. The conversation was worlds away from the actual job. I was subjected to pure algorithmic exercises on a shared screen with a ticking clock.
- The ignored human factor: The natural nervousness of the format carried more weight than actual knowledge.
- The technical disconnect: It required solving problems in a language that was not even part of the core stack for the position—and which, to my surprise, I later found out the company itself did not even use in their daily routine. An artificial barrier that does not measure competence; it measures anxiety control.
The Diagnosis: There is currently no mature industry standard for testing a developer. Companies evaluate stage performance under stress but completely ignore the ability to build solid, working software.
The Ideal Model: Less Stage Fright, More Actual Delivery
The most honest, effective, and realistic way to evaluate a tech professional remains the asynchronous take-home test.
For the Employer
It allows a proper, calm analysis of:
- Code organization
- Design patterns
- Testing strategy
- Documentation
- How the candidate structures a complete solution
All without the interference of a timer ticking on the screen.
For the Candidate
It grants the freedom to work in their own configured environment, using their own tools at their own pace and focus level, mimicking exactly how they would perform after being hired.
Turning Frustration into Portfolio
If there is any silver lining to be extracted from this marathon of technical challenges, it is that the code we write belongs to us.
When the interview process fails due to a company's incompetence, the developed project is not lost:
It becomes part of your portfolio.
Today, I own highly functional, robust, and production-ready projects that were born precisely from these technical tests. They are living proof of my ability to deliver, available for anyone to see, even if the companies that requested them lacked the capacity to properly evaluate them.
The Disrespect of Corporate Ghosting
The conclusion of these processes brings to light the most critical and dehumanizing aspect of the current market:
The total lack of responsibility and consideration from recruiters.
You invest hours—sometimes entire weekends—studying the company's business rules, coding the best possible solution, and submitting the test.
The return?
Months of absolute silence.
If they reply at all, it is usually an automated rejection email generated by an ATS months later, stating they chose another profile, without a single point of personalized feedback.
Many simply disappear entirely (ghosting).
Treating experienced professionals with this level of amateurism and disrespect is a clear symptom of a sick industry.
Conclusion
The tech market urgently needs to recalibrate its expectations, humanize its processes, and stop looking for "whiteboard superheroes" to solve problems that actually require practical engineering, patience, and collaboration.
After all, lines of code are written by people, to solve problems for people.
If companies keep filtering candidates through outdated high-pressure methods, they will keep complaining about a "shortage of qualified talent"—when, in reality, the talent is knocking at the door, only to be barred by tests that make no sense at all.
Top comments (0)