High performer is so subjective too.

You can be a great unblocker, team lead, and work well within cross cutting areas and with interdepartmental stake holders, have a history of strong technical performance.

and yet its nebulous if that means you're a high performer or not to those hiring. It seems I'm seeing 'culture fit' as a common reason people aren't getting hired again. That was out of vogue for a good while.

▲

bayarearefugee 9 hours ago | parent [-]

In tech 'culture fit' is generally a dog whistle for ageism in my experience.

▲

no_wizard 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I also think its being used to filter out people that aren't basically a mirror for the interviewers in many instances.

I've noticed a huge tightening of the rope around that sort of thing.

I can't tell you how many times I've passed all the tests, all the interview things, get to the final round with the team and the rejection email comes in despite having good conversations. By all accounts, I believe any person would say the interview went well.

my peers are reporting the same things.

▲

ptrrrrrrppr 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Other angle: often interview with candidate A goes well, but then you meet candidate B who is comparable but wants less money. From my experience that happens more often now, as there are more people who are desperate and willing to lower their salary expectations to a level that I wouldn't consider reasonable few years ago.

	▲	mjr00 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have hired a lot of people and I have never seen a situation where candidate A and B are both within the target salary band but one was chosen because they were cheaper. You'd always choose the one that was better. I can only see a slightly lower expected salary being a factor at extremely early stage startups with very little funding.