All I could think was, "I just explained how I'm out here waiting 4 months for software. Nobody is rallying shit. There aren't strict deadlines. Nobody cares. That's why I'm here interviewing."
Amazon was the same way. All they were asking was like, "Why didn't you adapt and overcome this obstacle? blah blah" What!? This is defense software numb nuts- I don't have privileges.
It seems that they ask great questions for engineers who already come from that culture.
FWIW, I've used this as my answer to that exact question. "Despite repeated requests and proactive discussions, all attempts to stem the <BAD THING HERE> were negated by management".
But yeah, in defense and a few other industries, it's really your job to shut up and work.
The worst was when you got picked for G&L interviews (Googliness and Leadership). Nobody defines those terms, so nobody knows how to interview for them. They give us a few sample questions for people at each level, so most people just blindly pick one or two and go with those. "Tell me about a time you rallied..." is definitely on that list.
Let's be honest, for most employees interviewing was a chore, and not one that they could see the outcomes of. So of course the experiences are going to drag out and be monotonous and robotic.
I happily never particularly cared one way or the other about working for Google (and only once or twice did their recruiters reach out/get back to me when I was actually looking; I am sufficiently ambivalent that most of the times their recruiters have reached out have been "I'm not currently looking"), but their cachet has only dropped since I started my career, and their remote-as-second-class-citizen approach currently makes it a non-starter for me. I'm not going back to the office.
I'm optimistic I will live long enough to see the death of this type of interview. Great gate-keeper question, easy to mark, next to zero signalling value as to ability to problem solve or program. Sigh...
When interviewing we are instructed to write up the interview question and answer and score on a rubric with citations into the interview notes. These notes then go to the hiring committee who makes the decision without knowing the human side at all. I think the point is something like this
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...
where the hiring committee is intentionally blinded. There just isn't anywhere in the notes to record "what kind of a person you are". There is a separate interview which tries to capture that, but the rest of this is in the name of avoiding bias, and maybe being more lenient with someone who went to the same school as you, or makes you laugh or whatever.
I was mostly stationary during the live on-site. I was taken to a room and the interviewers came to me. Some chit-chat, then given the problem, then working on the problem. A break for lunch, then I was taken to a room near where the first was for the rest of my interviews. Much the same deal. I stayed in the room while the interviewers cycled through. I was told that the lunch portion wasn't part of the interview and the person escorting me around didn't have any influence on the hiring decision. That may or may not be true, but it is what they told me.
About a week after, I was informed of my rejection. I'm fairly sure I know one interview I particularly bombed. The question involved something I had done before, but a while ago and I floundered a bit trying to recall all the bits and bobs of the syntax and structure. The other four I felt could go either way.
During the virtual on-site, it was just being passed off to various Google Meet rooms. I think I wrote code in a shared Google Doc. I felt ok in most of them. None particularly stuck out. A few days after the interview, I was informed I was being passed to the hiring committee. And then a few days after that, I was informed the hiring committee passed on me.
All the questions I got were vaguely LeetCode-ish. They were all of the template: Here's a vague problem with loose requirements. I'd ask some questions about particulars, "Can I assume this?", "Is this true for all?", "Is this sorted?", "Can I go to the bathroom?" "No, now I really have to go, last time was to avoid answering a question" etc. Then I'd write up a solution in my language of choice, trying to explain why I was doing what I was going while doing it. Just stream of conscious style stuff. Occasionally, I'd get comments or questions as I talked. Stuff about assumptions I was making or why I was trying this method. Then if there was time and they were satisfied with my solution, they'd ask me to essentially scale it up. "Ok, that works when you can hold the dataset in memory, but what if the dataset was three bazillion petabytes?"
I personally enjoy puzzles and challenges, so I found the process fun even though the fact that it is an interview makes it a little more. But since I have also had a job both times I interviewed, the stakes are a bit lower for me, which also helps.