> the ideal goal of an interview is to make a prediction of how happy and productive the candidate will be in the role they are being considered for.
I'd add two things that should be an obviously component of that way of thinking, but frequently get missed:
1. You need that good candidate as much as they need you. Anecdote: I have found it much harder to hire good people, than to get hired. By "good" I don't just mean smart, I also mean amicable and driven.
2. You do not have to agree with them on everything during the interview. Anecdote: some of my best work has been against the grain. But I am persuasive and passionate when I'm convinced that I see a "better path forward", and if I can convince my peers and leaders to let me shoot my shot, it usually works out. Part of the success may be due to the fact that I have to succeed in order not to look a fool or let people down. (If someone else's venture fails its much easier to shrug).
The point being: your candidate may disagree with you. But may be also be right. Or wrong, but letting them invest their whole self into the enterprise may be better value.
But this resonates the most with me:
> because he was such a jerk to people that those people would spend tons of their time and energy to find ways to avoid working with him
I've seen this so, so much. And it wrecks teams. When I say "let people disagree", again, this is when the best and worst of people emerges.