It's funny. Silicon Valley is considered to be one of the least risk averse places but when it comes to hiring, it's incredibly risk averse. On one hand, compa

It's funny. Silicon Valley is considered to be one of the least risk averse places but when it comes to hiring, it's incredibly risk averse. On one hand, companies are loathe to make a hiring decision without running candidates through a meat grinder. Resumes? Those doesn't tell us anything. Code samples? You might not have even written the code and truth be told, we're not going to take the time to look at them anyway. References? Everyone says you're a rockstar, but how do we know you'll be a hit with our team? On the other hand, prospective candidates who are currently employed often expect offers without doing much of anything. Four-plus hours of interviews? I can't take time out from my job. A real-world coding test of some sort? I could get in trouble with my current employer, and I want to spend time with my family tonight. And by the way, how much are you going to pay me again, because if total comp is less than $xxx,xxx, we should end this conversation before it even gets started. Don't get me wrong: the cost of a bad hire or career move can be very high, and companies and prospective employees should use common sense (and gut instinct) to filter out relationships that clearly aren't likely to work. But it's insane to believe that every element of risk can be eliminated in these transactions, which is precisely what both sides so frequently seem to be doing. As a company, if you demand to try before you buy and the word "employee development" is a foreign concept, you're likely to have problems. As a prospective employee, don't expect a company to hand you the goods if you act like you're window shopping.