> It's often OK to not solve the problem as long as you give an interviewer insight into how you think
It's not, though. Many people have no clue how to interview well, and way too many tech interviewers are obsessed with whether or not the candidate got the "right" answer.
Anyone who dropped multiple mediocre solutions before a good one in an interview with me would likely get a strong hire — I love to see this kind of iterative thinking, and finding people who can role model a healthy exchange of rough-draft ideas is always a great boon for the team's psychological safety (and by extension, their creativity and productivity).
But I think, industry-wide, it's not great. As a SWAG, probably ~50% of interviewers are more interested in the correctness of the answer rather than the caliber of the thought process and communication.
It's not, though. Many people have no clue how to interview well, and way too many tech interviewers are obsessed with whether or not the candidate got the "right" answer.
Anyone who dropped multiple mediocre solutions before a good one in an interview with me would likely get a strong hire — I love to see this kind of iterative thinking, and finding people who can role model a healthy exchange of rough-draft ideas is always a great boon for the team's psychological safety (and by extension, their creativity and productivity).
But I think, industry-wide, it's not great. As a SWAG, probably ~50% of interviewers are more interested in the correctness of the answer rather than the caliber of the thought process and communication.