Do difficult technical interviews make you less likely to quit?

Yep i believe difficulty to get = more valuable but it's obviously subconscious and HIGHLY variable between people.. this is not hard science.

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"

It's funny because the crappy modern technical interview (which every company cargo culted from Google) makes it hard for companies to hire in two ways:

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).

No, but facing difficult technical interviews means I'm less likely to go job hunting. The prospect of interviewing is harrowing enough that I only quit a job when I'm really feeling a lot of pressure to find something new.

Why would I care about the "achievement" of getting the job more than the quality of the job (pay, benefits, subject matter, learning opportunities, commute, etc.)? If the interview was complex because the job is complex then the benefits should be appropriate. If the interview was complex and the job was simple then the interview was stupid.

No idea. I won't do 'tests' when interviewing. They want to know how good I am, I got code on GitHub, I got references. Or hey, just talk to me. But no exams, not gonna, nope.

I don't think jobs can really match tests that show your raw/diverse technical talent that can take on 5 niche experts with limited interviewing skills.

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.

It's not just the interviewing, there's a huge amount of friction / switching costs for changing jobs.

* 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.

I find it funny that when I go through my network I often end up taking projects where I have to pivot to new niche and build something innovative which becomes a core of the business. Many come back to me years after our ways part and ask to join them again. And yet, each time I go and take interview through recruiters I almost never find successful path through the grinds. Recently, when I'm contacted by recruiters, I ask for details of recruitment process and if it consists of too many stages I don't continue with it. I'm probably one of hundreds anyways so it does not feel worth the hassle.

The only value I can see after the fact is if the technical interviews were relevant, then the quality of new hires would be high and I enjoy working with capable co-workers.

No. It shows I could get any job if I could even get this one

>then doesn't this make you want to stay in the job longer so you don't "waste" your achievement of getting it

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