Never understood this way of interviewing. I get shit now and then for helping people too much in coding exercises, but if someone has reached the point where they are obviously not going to progress why not nudge them along and see how they respond?
I've found that the ability to receive and act on guidance with a certain degree of humility is a much better signal of someone's potential than how many algorithms they've memorised.
It takes a lot of practice to know what level of assistance to provide at what time. A coworker once showed me a technique of keeping a google doc with the problems, as well as a step-by-step of the solution and the times at which they should be at that step. It always seemed to work out well for the candidates, as even a poor candidate would finish the problem at like 55 minutes into a 60 min interview.
Even with that, getting a person to see what they should be doing next, without telling them explicitly, is definitely a skill you develop with practice. I think you're right in erring on the side of too much assistance. You get to see much more of how the candidate works if you can skip over the part where they are getting stuck on something.
It is one of those common tropes, "interviewing is hard", that seems to justify the inevitability of poor attitude, wasting time of interviewees (remember the interviewers are paid for those hours) and a painful process for basically anyone.
I often interview for my company/group and yes, it is challenging in one hour to find out "life, death, and miracles" of some guy who is being interviewed, but it is especially challenging when the interviewer is in a bad mood, does not want to be there, or sees interviewing as a nuisance, and he is looking for a reason to make someone fail.
I worked at a FAANG and I got offers from FAANGs-adjacent companies, so I am not one of those you-cannot-win-at-this-game-so-you-complain people.
I saw: someone stopping the interview for unexplained reasons after the first 45 minutes, an interviewer at a blue company looking at my private parts for a good part of 45 minutes, multiple people interviewing while doing something else in person or virtually, recruiters (those were the fronts, the hiring managers were responsible) dragging the process forever and then say no with zero explanation.
Is it really "hard" doing better than that?
Yes some people just need a nudge in the right direction to carry the task through to completion. And some need to be pushed along the entire way. In either case they don't leave the interview feeling humiliated having floundered in the face of smug silence.
Actually being able to take a hint and work with the interviewer is a strong signal that a candidate, while maybe not the best for the job, has growth potential.
Right, one can note in the feedback that they got questions X,Y and Z but needed more than average / normal / acceptable level of hints. Better than sitting there staring down the interviewee in silence for 30min like a psycho. Then again.. it says a lot about tech management, doesn't it?
I've found that the ability to receive and act on guidance with a certain degree of humility is a much better signal of someone's potential than how many algorithms they've memorised.