Ask HN: Do difficult technical interviews make you less likely to quit?
If the job was hard to get, then doesn't this make you want to stay in the job longer so you don't "waste" your achievement of getting it?
But you can see difficult selection processes make clubs more prestigious for centuries already. Jobs, colleges, fraternities. It's obviously a real effect with room to debate how much, how long it lasts after you already have the job not just landing it, many factors etc.. but there is no room to completely deny the existence of such an effect imo. Pretending like it doesn't exist is like a dodo saying "haha marketing doesn't work on me" or "haha air quality has no impact on me"
1. Even very competent people don't want to do them, because they're high pressure, incredibly narrow, and highly capricious.
2. Even very competent people don't pass them reliably, because they're often poorly designed and run.
TripleByte really seemed like they had a shot at solving this problem, by interviewing people once really well and then getting companies to trust their credentialing. Unfortunately they didn't manage to pull this off at all, really. Their interview was above average but not great and companies just didn't seem to trust it.
There's still a massive prize awaiting whichever companies do solve this problem. And it will be a huge boon to the tech employee and employer market in general, by increasing "employment liquidity", productivity, job satisfaction, and retention.
In the meantime, more companies could take advantage of this market inefficiency to hire people in alternative ways. For example, some companies do contract-to-hire, which is one way to do a much more thorough evaluation of someone's suitability for a particular role.
One reason companies like Google instituted this kind of faux rigor in their hiring process is because they're so bad at firing bad hires. So another thing companies can to be better is to hire more easily but also fire more easily. Offering severance (say, 3 months + tenure increase) makes this a perfectly ethical policy but somehow this is usually viewed as a totally untenable option at modern tech companies (Netflix seems to be the exception).
Really, any well paying commercial job has to have a lot of filler because there's very little money to be made in not finding the market for repeating the use of an advanced skill, and a lot of challenges around coordination over time because freelancer sites can find a low paid expert at repeating whatever you like in a vacuum.
So I'm generally happier with employers who seem honest about what the job is, what parts of my background I might use and what I might find boring, tedious, etc. I think I would feel pretty let down by a job after one of the pressure interviews if I really believed it was an accurate interview for the job.
* Applying / ATS forms
* Phone calls with recruiters
* Doing screening tests
* Interviewing
* Background checks
* Drug testing
* Onboarding, training, getting to know people, learning the codebase and systems
* Moving 401k, stock plan stuff, vesting
* Choosing health insurance, switching providers, etc
...
If you add it all up, the time from feeling "Hmm, this job isn't the best, maybe I should apply for something else" to being comfortable in your new job instead of "the new guy" is something in the order of 6-12 months; less for new junior jobs, more for senior roles. Once you appreciate this, it's absolutely not something to embark upon any more often than necessary.
Why would it be relevant if I cannot leverage it in any way?
I think company's branding would be more relevant in that context
and yes, company's branding is one of the things that could make me stay a little longer