I appreciate the notion of having the whole team prepared for the interview process. I think this is a best practice. But, when I interview, I am looking for completely different things than the author.

I really don't care about what you did at your last company or if you raised this by 50% or that by 30%. Rather, I want three things in a candidate: smart, talented and hungry. If I get someone who is smart, talented and hungry and I drop them into a situation where there is unlimited upside, my job then becomes to guide them to greatness.

I also strongly disagree with the notion of not asking questions you do not know the answer to. Anyone can read an obscure section of the C++ language spec or a chapter on some data structure 5 minutes before an interview and make themselves feel superior to the candidate. What does this prove? Nothing. I often ask questions I don't know the answer to in order to determine whether or not the candidate can teach me something. I love having people on my team that have the ability to teach others.

The author's point is very well taken -- interviewing is an important process and it should be conducted in a way that results in the best possible outcome. But, he's looking at the situation far too rigidly for my taste.