I wouldn't worry about it. It is their loss. I would imagine that if Google did a randomized controlled trial among a pool of qualified resumes (say after they pass a phone screen) or a small coding challenge.. that they would find that job performance is not correlated with technical interview performance. They already found that GPA and where you went to school doesn't matter. In fact Bock thinks it's only behavioral traits that determine performance. So here's a challenge to Google or Facebook: ask the behavioral questions, ask some technical ones. Score only on the behavioral and hire. In one year see what the "performance" levels are... I'm guessing they did the latter test where they accepted based on technical performance and ignored the behavioral pieces which is why Bock nows says that behavioral are the most important...

My hypothesis is that the bar is still too high and that if you have a basic technical baseline you'd still perform well regardless of your white-boarding abilities. Google could run this experiment and in fact they might already have enough data to answer it with a causal analysis.

The key issue is how do you define "performance" both in the interview and in your yearly review... nobody has a clue how to actually measure performance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-people-2013-...