An Amazon Bar Raiser's Guide to Cracking Tech Interviews
This is a guest post by Apurv Singh, a Senior Engineer and Bar Raiser at Amazon. Having conducted 200+ technical interviews, Apurv shares practical lessons and insights to help you prepare better and crack tech interviews.
After conducting close to 200 interviews at Amazon, across entry-level to senior-level roles and job families such as SDE, TPM, MLE, Product Manager, and SDM, I have gained a deeper appreciation for what it means to sit on the other side of the table.
As an interviewer, my goal is not just to ask questions or judge answers. It is to objectively collect data points, identify strengths, notice potential red flags, and assess whether a candidate demonstrates the skills and behaviors expected for the role.
The Interviewer’s Responsibility
The interview process at large tech companies like Amazon is highly structured and well defined. My responsibility as an interviewer is to drive the conversation, manage time effectively, and collect enough meaningful data points to make a fair assessment.
One of the most important skills is taking detailed notes while actively listening, so that no critical signal is missed. Every follow-up question is intentional. It helps uncover more depth, clarify ambiguities, and evaluate the candidate against the expectations of the role.
A good interviewer also tries to make the candidate feel comfortable. The best interviews do not feel like an interrogation. They feel like a thoughtful discussion between peers working through a problem together.
How Candidates Are Evaluated?
As interviewers, we are assigned well-defined competencies to evaluate candidates against. These may include technical questions, role-specific expectations, and behavioral aspects such as Leadership Principles.
The evaluation criteria help us identify both strengths and areas of concern in a candidate’s performance.
A candidate is not evaluated only on whether they arrive at the correct answer. We also look at the overall signal across multiple dimensions, such as technical depth, problem-solving approach, communication clarity, ownership and accountability, ability to handle ambiguity, seniority signals, and behavioral competencies.
At Amazon, Leadership Principles are especially important and are given equal weight alongside technical performance. Strong candidates demonstrate not only that they can solve problems, but also that they can take ownership, make sound decisions, communicate effectively, and operate at the expected level for the role.
Consistency across rounds matters too. Hiring decisions are based on the overall pattern of data points collected throughout the loop, not on a single strong or weak moment in one interview.
What Makes a Candidate Stand Out?
One thing that immediately stands out to me is how a candidate approaches ambiguity. Jumping straight to a solution without first clarifying the requirements is often a red flag, because it can make the interview feel mechanically rehearsed rather than thoughtful.
On the other hand, a candidate who asks relevant clarifying questions early in the discussion creates a strong first impression. It shows that they are not just trying to solve a memorized problem, but are genuinely trying to understand the problem space.
Another important signal is the ability to explain the chosen approach clearly. A strong candidate should be able to walk the interviewer through their thought process, justify why they picked a particular solution, and discuss the tradeoffs involved. The final answer matters, but the reasoning behind it often matters even more.
The candidates who handle this well tend to move through the problem in a predictable, deliberate way:
As an interviewer, I also value originality. Since I am investing my time in the conversation as well, it is always exciting when I learn something new from a candidate. There have been interviews where a candidate came up with a unique or elegant approach that I had not considered before, and that immediately left a strong positive impression.
Common Red Flags Interviewers Notice
One thing I genuinely appreciate is when candidates openly acknowledge that they do not know something. No one is expected to know everything, and honesty often creates a positive signal.
As an experienced interviewer, it is usually easy to identify when a candidate is trying to bluff or exaggerate. If a candidate does not know a concept but can reason through it logically, that is still a much better signal than pretending to know something they do not.
Some other common red flags interviewers notice include:
Being defensive when challenged instead of engaging with the feedback
Claiming ownership of a project without clearly explaining their personal contribution
Over-engineering simple problems
Blaming others when describing past projects
Ignoring edge cases
Not testing the solution
A strong interview is not about appearing perfect. It is about being thoughtful, honest, structured, and open to feedback. Candidates who can acknowledge gaps, clarify their thinking, and recover gracefully from mistakes often leave a much better impression than candidates who try to force confidence without substance.
How Behavioral Interviews are Assessed
At Amazon, Leadership Principles are extremely important and are evaluated with the same seriousness as technical skills. Behavioral interviews are not casual conversations; they help interviewers understand how a candidate has acted in real situations and whether those behaviors align with the role’s expectations.
A strong answer is usually well-structured using the STAR format: Situation, Task, Action, and Result. Candidates should clearly explain the context, their specific responsibility, the actions they took, and the outcome they achieved.
A couple of things tend to weaken behavioral answers. Repeating the same example for multiple questions can be a weak signal, since it may suggest limited experience or thin preparation. Vague answers without concrete details also make it hard to assess what the candidate actually contributed.
Data matters here. Strong candidates quantify impact where possible, such as improved latency, reduced cost, saved time, increased adoption, or better customer experience. Strong behavioral answers are specific, authentic, and backed by measurable outcomes.
What Candidates Misunderstand About Interviews?
One common misunderstanding candidates have is that interviews are only about getting the correct answer.
In reality, interviewers are equally interested in how the candidate approaches the problem, clarifies requirements, communicates their thought process, and handles feedback.
Another misconception is that taking hints is a negative signal. Getting stuck can happen to anyone. What matters more is how the candidate responds: whether they listen carefully, adapt their approach, and continue reasoning logically. Many candidates also underestimate behavioral interviews.
At companies like Amazon, Leadership Principles are evaluated very seriously, and behavioral rounds can carry as much weight as technical rounds.
Candidates sometimes believe they need to appear perfect, but honesty is more valuable than pretending to know everything. A candidate who acknowledges gaps and reasons through uncertainty often creates a stronger impression than someone who tries to bluff.
A strong interview is not a performance of perfection; it is a demonstration of clarity, ownership, problem-solving, and self-awareness.
Advice to Candidates From an Interviewer
My biggest piece of advice to candidates is to treat the interview like a collaborative problem-solving discussion, not a test where you have to prove you know everything. Start by clarifying the requirements, state your assumptions, and explain your thought process clearly as you move toward a solution.
Do not rush to the answer. Interviewers care about how you think, how you handle ambiguity, and how you respond when challenged. If you get stuck, stay calm, listen to hints, and use them to adjust your approach.
For behavioral interviews, prepare multiple examples from your experience and structure them using the STAR format. Be specific about your personal contribution, the tradeoffs you made, and the impact you created. Whenever possible, support your answers with data.
Most importantly, be honest. If you do not know something, acknowledge it and reason through it logically. Strong candidates are not perfect; they are clear, thoughtful, coachable, and self-aware!
Thank you for reading!
 | A guest post by
|