[oxalo]

But do you want your new employee to choke as soon as they see a new problem? To me, being able to solve the problem doesn't reveal anything; however, how they handle the problem can. I think its about context and what information you're trying to glean.

[albemuth]

By that logic you could have them do the problem under time constraints and constant interruptions, you wouldn't want a new employee that can't handle stress and distractions.

[cousin_it]

I realize you were trying for a reductio ad absudum, but actually I kinda like your idea, because it suggests a wide range of other promising ideas. Imagine a software company whose programmers were chosen for being immune to procrastination. They would run circles around competitors!

[ern]

I recall reading that these sorts of problems were popular at one stage at places like Microsoft and Google for precisely that reason- they allegedly revealed problem solving abilities. They were subsequently dumped when it was found that they showed little correlation with job performance. I don't have the citations offhand, but I would probably personally be wary of working at s place that subjected me to brainteasers in an interview knowing that they were somewhat discredited already.

[oxalo]

I'd like to see the data on this, or a variation.

First variation is with the candidates ability to solve the problem. Like you said, Microsoft and Google seem to have determined there's no correlation between that and job performance.

Second variation is with a panel of interviewers who propose the problem. Based on how the candidate responds, the panel chooses whether to 'hire' the candidate, based on their ability to reason about the problem and communicate, rather than on their ability to solve it.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the yes/no of the interviewers and the candidate's job performance.