Generally companies succeed in hiring by filtering resumes and interviewing candidates. That's it. It's weird if a company feels it needs to do more than that.

Generally companies succeed in hiring by filtering resumes and interviewing candidates. That's it. It's weird if a company feels it needs to do more than that. Companies either have trial periods or can let go of non-performing personnel. Hiring is critical but I've not seen any study that would correlate "high scores" in any type of hiring test to actual work performance. This implies no matter how elaborate interview performances are orchestrated, their capability to do anything else except create false negatives increases as their complexity increases. Hiring, in essence, is always a gating process with very little predictive capability beyond. The only thing you can know is the percentage of new hires who fail at their duties, and if that percentage is oddly high, you realize there is a problem in your hiring process. I suppose you can gauge candidate agreeableness and conformity by subjecting them to all sorts of hazing procedures but in our field I don't see how that translates to good outcomes either - technically speaking. Might be good for creating cult enclaves, though, for lonely gurus. I was a bit tongue in cheek here but my opinion "less is better" holds as it comes to hiring practices - this does not imply lack of diligence from the part of the hiring manager.