Leet code is neither sufficient or necessary to writing brilliant software. Your statement is true but Google, being mostly people cut from the same cloth, has group think about these issues. On the other hand, that monolithic culture is probably what has limited their success and kept them from being a more harmful monopoly.

while this is true, maybe they should work on how they assess candidates instead of continually complaining about how there are none.

google admitted years ago, it didn't help..

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/google-...

Google found that riddles didn’t help, so they stopped asking them. They didn’t find the same for coding questions.

Yet :-P

I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar article about leet code...

There are two problems with this phrase, one is that it shouldn't. Really, if somebody a bit worse goes way into the negative value for you and you are a large company, you have some procedural problem that should be fixed. Long-time employees also have bad moments, and you should be able to survive those.

The second problem is that the onus is on you on making sure those bad interviews decrease the odds if hiring bad people, instead of increasing them or being irrelevant. Without that evidence, this is a non-argument.

So... they double-down on a poor proxy of effectiveness on the job?

Why not train a bad hire ?

Training a 'bad' hire requires taking 'good' employee out of circulation for a while and, depending on what way they are bad, might not lead to anything anyway.

I want to add to this that in many cases getting many "bad hires" can also be symptom of bad management or bad workplace environment.