It seems like I’m in the minority here, but I would not want to work at a company with this sort of policy, and actively try to avoid working at ones that do. Is this sort of policy a benefit to employers? Perhaps. Investing less in recruiting/interviewing/onboarding per employee or prospective employee, and more in firing and resource management is a great way to shuffle through employees quickly and filter out the ones that work out for your company. Do I personally want to work in a company with high turnover, nervous employees, and with doubt as to whether or not I actually belong there, even though I “made it” through the interview process? Absolutely not.

We all know that interviewing is a two way street. It’s my job as a prospective employee to evaluate the employer, ask questions, and figure out if the job is a good fit. It’s their job as an employer to do the same for me. Now, it’s also my job to figure out if they’re putting sufficient resources into their hiring process, and appropriately evaluating *me* so that I don’t unintentionally get put into a de facto “trial period” as an employee, potentially wasting months of time that would have been better spent at a place I was actually a fit for.

For what it’s worth, Google takes the exact opposite approach with its hiring practices, and has determined that false positives are an unacceptable cost, and it would rather risk losing out on a few good people: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Googles-hiring-process-have-so-many-false-negatives Of course, your company probably doesn’t have the recruiting pipeline that Google has, but attempting to compensate for that with practices that produce a net loss to the workplace culture is a terrible idea.