We all know that interviews can focus on knowledge not applicable to the job, leading to candidates excelling in interviews but failing at their job, or vice ve

We all know that interviews can focus on knowledge not applicable to the job, leading to candidates excelling in interviews but failing at their job, or vice versa. I don't hold a firm ethical view on whether this justifies cheating in interviews. However, as noted on Blind, people do succeed in their roles after cheating. Some could even make the argument that those who deliver business value fulfil the primary expectation an employer has of them, and whatever happens at the interview might be almost irrelevant. From my experience leading teams, people with gumption, perseverance, and great learning skills almost always outperform others long-term, making entry-level skills a worse indicator of future performance in comparison. I've never regretted hiring someone with these values. When entering tech, I performed poorly on some technical interviews, which I'm ashamed of. Still, I received competitive offers based on potential. Some companies even skip technical panels/whiteboards for candidates with poor initial performance in technical tests but good growth potential. While unconventional and you should not expect that a company will do this for you, this approach seems more sensible than crazy to me.