The hardest part about interviewing is that there is no feedback loop; I once interviewed at 10 companies within 2 weeks and got rejected from all of them, but to this day I still don't know what part I need to improve upon.
I absolutely don't get those wide open questions like "How would you design 1-hour delivery?" (real question btw). As someone who has done a lot of consulting work, my instincts are never, ever try to answer such a ridiculously broad question on your own with no context. The answer to me is to budget for several weeks of planning with a broad range of stakeholders to prioritize features and come up with an initial technical approach that we can refine after an MVP launch, but I don't think that's what they wanted to hear.
Quick tip: interviewers often design that kind of question to be intentionally vague. If you get a question like that, they probably want a bunch of questions before you start on an answer. Like, "which part of the process are we designing? The software stack, interfacing with logistics companies, customer service?"
It seems frustrating, but they're looking for people who will drill down and make sure they fully understand a task before they run off to solve it. Asking for clarification is usually a good thing in an interview, especially since the interviewers don't always think the problems through completely.
The lack of feedback seems like a liability thing. A very small number of people will sue because they don't like the reason they were given, so the company decides not to give detailed feedback.
Given how many features AWS alone ships every year, I'm sure Amazon is very familiar with prioritizing features and building MVPs. But you're interviewing for a software engineering position (I assume) and the question is explicitly about design, so project planning is off topic here. It's fine to mention it in passing, but the meat of the answer should be about the "initial technical approach" that you mention.
Your comment suggests that, due to your consulting experience, you flat out refused to draft an initial technical approach on the spot. That may be wise is other situations, but you aren't here as a consultant. Amazon isn't going to start implementing 1-hour delivery based on your plans. They're asking this question to see you think and work your way through a complex problem.
Additionally, your answer is so vague that it could apply to almost any question ("How to do X?" "Gather stakeholders and come up with an initial technical approach").
Interviewed at a FAANG last year, failed the onsite. I got called by the (internal) recruiter a few weeks ago asking if I wanted to retry, and he offered feedback he had from my previous attempt. I was shocked - both that he provided feedback, and because my own evaluation of how I did differed from the actual feedback (did better at a round I thought I bombed in). More on this later.
Interviewed at another FAANG, and got rejected there too. Here, the hiring manager immediately gave me feedback before sending me home. Again, surprising.
So are things changing in regards to giving feedback? Usually FAANG leads the charge, and other companies play copycat.
Getting back to the first FAANG, I wanted to punch myself because according to the recruiter, I might actually have been able to get in if I had asked to be considered for a lower level than what they had originally pegged me for. I would have hands down, no hesitation, jumped for joy to be brought in at a lower level. Sucked that no one told me at the time of the actual rejection.
That seems like something the company should initiate on.
"Based on your interview, we think you would be more qualified for this position instead. Would you consider?"
- In an interview, if you feel it could have gone better, you can ask your interviewer about better solutions. I have literally done this in interviews that led to an offer - when they get to the point where you ask questions, one of yours can be "I don't feel like I got to a great solution here, can you explain what an efficient solutions would look like, or point me to a reference where I can read up on this"?
- You can ask your recruiter for feedback, or just suggestions for general areas that you can improve. More likely than not, they won't respond or will tell you the policy is not to share anything, but you've already lost out on this job, and one polite inquiry is not going to put a black mark on your record at this company.
People with combative personalities do not avoid conflict, they seek them out.
I think if you read up on the Big Five you may get a more refined understanding of how personality metrics are measured nowadays.
> People would reply and try to contest our decisions, get frustrated that our responses weren’t specific enough, or otherwise indicate that our feedback wasn’t very productive.
Depending on the company and its location, there could also be legal considerations in not giving feedback.
Another was that I did well and people liked me, but they realized they actually needed to focus on a different position. This meshed with things I learned during the interview.
Granted, these are the low-risk rejections where giving me the reason doesn't open up the company to anything legally, but it's still appreciated.
Nothing can save you from getting ghosted, but you definitely should utilize the face time you have to ASK questions, too.
I've had good results simply asking the recruiter for feedback. Typically they are able to give me some insight into the process that I wouldn't have been able to guess. In "no offer" situations, it's often "the hiring manager was looking for someone with more experience in X" or something like that. This works best over the phone, since they are apt to tell you more than they would be willing to put into writing.
For that matter, the recruiter is often an underutilized resource before the interview too. There's no rule that the nature of interview questions need be a complete surprise. The recruiter is often able to shed light on who will ask what sort of questions, which can be reassuring and narrow down what you might review before the interview.
Everyone else, if they bother enough, only sends the standard template response.