If you read the article, the second part of the interview is doing more work on top of the project, but in front of people. I've gone through interviews like that before. Do two steps on a three step kata in front on your own time, and then a 2/3 hour interview to talk about what you wrote, and add the last piece to the kata. Not very easy to fake.
Any experienced programmer that is considering a job change will spend more than a few hours on the process anyway, in due diligence. If anything, I think this is an important part of gaining experience in the field: You actually want more time around future employers, to avoid a bad fit. Going to a place just to quit in 3 months time is a waste of your own time. Investing an extra few hours, or even few days, makes a lot of sense.
Won't the same programmer who got flustered in front of a white board also get flustered explaining the code?
I'm being the devils advocate here, trying to hone in on the best way to do this. I still think work products are a much better predictor than most any other interviewing technique.
for some it's not about introversion/extroversion but simply the fact that whatever part of their brain deals with speech is the same part that deals with thinking through those kinds of problems, so they can't do both at the same time as a matter of physics.
this is to put it precisely. the reality is much messier and varied. the point is, people's brains are not wired the same. and what this means, to make a long story short, is that these interviews are not comparing apples to oranges... not even close.
Any experienced programmer that is considering a job change will spend more than a few hours on the process anyway, in due diligence. If anything, I think this is an important part of gaining experience in the field: You actually want more time around future employers, to avoid a bad fit. Going to a place just to quit in 3 months time is a waste of your own time. Investing an extra few hours, or even few days, makes a lot of sense.