This presupposes there are actually issues with some of the aforementioned examples. The ultimate determiners of success are on the side of the company, not the

This presupposes there are actually issues with some of the aforementioned examples. The ultimate determiners of success are on the side of the company, not the applicant. A successful interview process is one that leads to a successful candidate, and really nothing else. (N.B., The linked Reddit post is indicative of abuse, so I’m not talking about that.) A lot of SW engineers complain after an interview process, especially a rejection, because of some “if only”-hypothetical. “If only they tested my real skills and not whiteboards. If only they saw that I’m a hard worker at work and I just don’t have time for side projects. If only they read my resume and know that I don’t need no stinkin’ coding test.” This is a strong aversion to false-negatives. But it generally seems to be in the company’s interest to over-reject according to some “stupid” rules than to over-hire. I’m not saying that there are no wrong interview styles, but I think there is a supposition and sensitivity of a problem that isn’t being framed correctly—around applicant satisfaction and not company success. I think if more folks ended up being hiring managers, they’d understand the inherent difficulty in the construction of these supposed silver bullet interview styles. (PS, I say this as someone who has complained very loudly and publicly about mistreatment at Google interviews.)