There is also a cost to hiring folks via an interview process that does not clearly signal, “we have thought about it and decided you belong here.” It reduces their willingness to ask for help and admit ignorance.
companies think that during interviews it is cheaper to let a really good candidate go than hiring a bad one. that is a huge mistake. every now and then they will not hire a key unique candidate, so they miss out on billions of $ in value. they don’t understand that if you hire 100 people, only about 5 of them will be doing all the important work and creating all the value.
I've worked with one or two of those, but I've also been on interview loops that rejected candidates who went on to massively successful careers at a different FAANG.
The cost of false positives is relatively easy to quantify, the cost of false negatives significantly harder. Which is higher?