I have been pleased recently by a few companies that now are making the interview process more personalized. They either let you give a talk or do a "deep-dive". They take at least a few of the coding problems from real situations related to the group's topic. They make the problem solving collaborative rather than adversarial.They ask system design questions related to your previous work.
This is distinctively different from generic and awkward interviews. Interviewers asking generic leetcode problems, "how would I design Twitter" (or some big site unrelated to the position) for the design question, and being smug jerks overall. In my experience, Google has been pretty bad at this. One time an interviewer even refused to tell me what he was working on, not even on what team because "I didn't need to know".
Why can't we have more interviews like the former and less like the latter?. I often ace the former while the latter are hit or miss. I believe there are too many false negatives caused by bad interviewers.
I am glad that it's getting better in some places.
Oddly it may not be a good thing for some. People who are not necessarily that good in their domain but good at prepping on leetcode for a few months might be at a disadvantage. For example there are plenty of positions that I could probably get that I’m not really fit for just because I’m really good at leetcode. Like jobs in languages I don’t use much like clojure, GoLang, Rust, etc.
So it could go both ways depending on a persons strengths.
Theres a whole repo of companies that use the more personalized style: https://github.com/poteto/hiring-without-whiteboards