> 1. Any good interview process should try and see through the interview skills and look more at the job candidate's actual skills that they're being hired for.

> 1. Any good interview process should try and see through the interview skills and look more at the job candidate's actual skills that they're being hired for. A company's inability to do so isn't a referendum on the candidate but rather on management. Unless of course the company is hiring the candidate to be interviewed professionally. This makes sense if the company is desperate to fill the role or needs tons of time. In many company's hiring is a process where false negatives (kicking someone out because of warning signs) is a better safety than a false positive (hiring someone and having them turn out to be crappy / toxic). Hiring is hard but firing people is even harder. Some companies have the bandwidth to manage people who are underperforming and raise up their general level of performance and some don't have that luxury. That being said, defining valid false negatives versus ridiculous bias IS HARD. There are things that are bad from a cultural fit perspective, but if you can only say hes a bad cultural fit and not give more details, if not to the candidate then at least to the rest of the hiring team, then you are not doing your job.