I strongly disagree. Perhaps he should have made up an excuse and be less confrontational. But it's not OK to let people abuse you. If you don't respect yourself nobody will.
1) He was criticized as being wrong for not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law.
2) He was also concerned that nobody really seemed to care much about his relevant business experience and really only judged him intensely on his programming skills, which he felt was only one aspect of his software development experience.
3) It was an open floor plan where everybody wore jeans, t-shirts and sandals.
4) The vast majority were in their early 20's with the oldest person and lead developer being 30.
5) They expected him to be involved in side projects and code for fun when he wasn't in the office.
Which of these are really abuse? Only #1 seems in any way negative, and that sounds more like a slightly bad interviewer than any sort of abuse. Honestly it seems like the OP felt that he was interviewing poorly and decided to walk out instead of being rejected. Now that's a perfectly natural human response; everyone wants to be in control of their own destiny.
But is it a professional response to some sort of abuse? No, it doesn't really seem like it.
0) It was an all day interview where everybody was given chances to grill him.
Personally I wouldn't consider that abuse either. IMHO a good interview is supposed to be hard. How else can you differentiate good candidates from bad? Perhaps others disagree.
I'm not saying this was a problem with the interview described as there isn't enough detail in the original post to say what happened really.
Plus, it was a one-day interview. I've been in job-interviews like this one, where mid-way through the whole thing I was realizing that I would not be a good fit for them, but in my case I could afford to be patient because the interview wasn't going to last more than a couple of hours anyway. But a one-day thingie where for at least 6 hours I would be reminded of me not being worthy for the guys trying to hire me would utterly depress me. I'm scared shitless of depression (pardon my French), so I'd just run away.
And a second thing. Once you get through more things in life which a 20-something man hasn't confronted yet (divorce, leaving your parents behind etc.) you begin to value honest no-bullshit decisions like this one. There's no gain in playing actors.
If I had 3 person-days of top developer attention aimed at me over the next six hours, I'd make the most of it. I'd find out exactly what it takes to succeed at that company, and if I really wanted to work there, I'd go home and learn those things better.
I think that that's the main reason that it matters that all these guys were in their 20's. I wonder if any have had kids, a family, anything that's more important to them than their work. If I were slated to interview at a company for an entire day, and I knew for certain that I wouldn't be joining them after only a couple of hours, I would without a doubt make the decision to go home to be with my kids.
One thing I would do that this gentleman did not do, however, would be to speak to the principal about my concerns alone before walking out. Seriously, he forced the guy to follow him to the elevator to get an explanation. That's terribly insulting, regardless of the situation. Give the guy a chance to prove your impressions wrong.
I've been on interview loops before and if it's clear that it's not a good fit we cut the loop short (sometimes by the third/fourth interviewer). This cuts both ways - there's no point in dragging the process out for both sides if it's clear what the resolution is going to be.
Yes of course. But what specifically in this story do you think constitutes abuse? The situation could at worst be described as a lack of tact by some of the interviewers. If your bar for abuse is that low, you're going to have a bad time in this industry. Or any industry for that matter! Pulling the ripcord because, surprise, a few 20-something engineers don't have flawless social skills is simply a mistake. Far better to figure out how to navigate the situation to mutual advantage, as Patrick's straightforward algorithm demonstrates.
It shouldn't be like that. Tech industry must grow up.
So your comment about watching people being treated a certain way really hit home. Perhaps it's time for a more frank (and private) discussion with my boss, or even a new job.
The only remotely questionable thing in that entire account was a criticism for "not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law". And even that may not be completely questionable, considering that we don't know the question the interviewer asked, nor the answer that the interviewee gave. Without context, this is pure hearsay.
The subtext is that if you don't accept an unequal and mildly-to-moderately abusive relationship with you on bottom, you don't belong in the industry.
Does 'hardly in a position' dictate what is a reasonable and polite way to treat people?
If company needs programmer and programmer needs job, the relationship is more or less symmetrical. If the company doesn't really need a programmer that much, I guess you are right that the programmer is not in a position to do anything except lick boots.
Only if there's one programmer for the job. If there are many equally skilled programmers applying and interviewing for the position, then the company absolutely has the power.
And to be clear, I never said that the interviewee should be willing to take abuse or insults. However, it is perfectly valid for an interviewer to see how the interviewee handles constructive criticism of their work. That can tell a lot about an applicant, especially on how they might fit in your company's culture.
The programmer may have multiple job openings to choose from too, as well as (presumably) an existing job.
The servile mindset is not necessary, and a company that would get pissy if you did what they would if they decided you weren't what they wanted to hire is a company with (no, not 'for', not really) whom self-respecting people need not work. Our time spent living is more valuable than catering to people desperate for asymmetric power-trip relationships.
Seriously! No more running around the office in sandals. Damn kids!
So if it was like that, then sure, walk out. If hypercriticism seems to be part of the culture, you owe it to yourself to cut it short. What's the reason for staying? You wouldn't want to do business with that kind of company, period. I think @patio11 and others are imagining a much more civil exchange, but the story struck me as describing a toxic environment.
TL;DR Don't stick around toxic environments.
More simply, there is no possible benefit in acting this way.
I agree that what you suggest is prudent, but the statement is false. For many people, simply avoiding certain kinds of annoyance is a benefit.
If avoiding certain annoyances keeps someone from reaching his stated goals, then obviously it's a bad strategy. However, often it doesn't.
By not dominating the thoughts and feelings inhabiting your mind, you are being held hostage to primal instincts. Merely avoiding annoyance is not worth it when the cost is high.
My point is that you don't know that. Different people have different goals and metrics for success. Avoiding dealing with annoying people may rate much higher for this person than for you.
Too little self discipline is a problem, where "too little" means not enough to allow you to do what you consider important. This doesn't mean that more is better. Discipline is a tool, not an end (unless that's your personal definition of success).