I don't understand the deferential view towards the company doing the interview, as if a company itself could never be considered rude, myopic, inconsiderate or wrong.
Also it doesn't sound like a referral (the OP doesn't work there), just a recommendation of the candidate's skills and experience.
If you live in a big city and apply for positions to a broad set of industries, there's a decent chance you'll never encounter anyone you've had a bad experience with. If you're focused on working in a smaller community/field, then you do have to spend more time managing your reputation.
>> When in doubt, don't burn bridges. Don't be rude. Don't be a Prima Donna.
I have a different piece of advice:
Always be professional, polite and respectful. If you've acted appropriately and people are still offended or outraged, then that's really their problem.
>> Someday the tech economy will be very different, ask anyone who lived through 2000 - 2003, when a lot of people had to get out of the industry because there were NO JOBS.
I lived through that bubble, I don't know that it's really that different.
Is economy being different ten years ago valid reason to pretend that you like what you don't really like, waste time and engage in ass-licking? Because, you know, thing may turn up differently someday?
But are you seriously condemning being polite? Just be a decent human being, don't act like you're better than everyone while ditching an interview.
Maybe this guy is such a super genius that everybody will forgive him for being a socially ignorant ass. Those of us mere mortals though should probably learn to be at least a little considerate and not burn bridges wherever we go. People are not robots - they don't like being treated as such even if it is "logical."
If you consider making up a white lie about a sick relative or pulling one person aside and very politely saying this isn't for you 'ass-licking' - then sure, sometimes you need to lick some ass. Most people just consider that kind of behavior part of being a civilized human being though.
It's too vague to be helpful. For example, the "dogmatic principles" criticism. The interviewers could have asked "Is security a good thing?", and he could have answered "No". Or the interviewers could have asked a silly question like "Tabs or spaces?" and berated him for answer answering "Spaces". Context is absolutely important.
And if we take the story as truthful, he just went up and said he's done with the interview, without explaining the reason to the room. He pretty clearly didn't explain to the room that he did not feel that he was a good fit, and did not want to further waste anyone's time. That's the only logical explanation for why the lead had to track him down in the elevator, to understand why the interviewee decided to end it.
This is such a great point. You never know when you might need some help from someone or a favor from a buddy. I can say I double clutched a few times on burning a bridge or two and I always find out later I'm glad I didn't.
Remember, companies need employees just like employees need companies. It's a two-way street.
And some of them may well have far more respect for the guy leaving when he knows he's not going to fit in than staying and 'wasting everyone's time'.
It doesn't sound to me like he was rude or prima-donna-ish. But then we are only getting one side.
I think that if you conclude that the company is not for you, and you feel that the interviewers have been less-than-nice, you are saving everyone otherwise-wasted-time by leaving early. I don't see how you are under any obligation to go through the motions in a process where you do not want a successful outcome. It's not rude to realize the company is not a good fit for you and save time.
In fact, why should any interviewer be offended with a candidate who has made this decision and leaves early? They've already decided they will not accept any offer from you. The only reason to be offended is if you cannot fathom than anyone would not want to work for you.
