[yangez]

> We’re arbitrarily defining “great” candidates as those scoring between 95th and 98th percentile on our technical interview, and “the best” candidates as those scoring at 98th percentile or above.

This is an important qualifier. I'd argue that the most technical candidates are not necessarily the ones who offer the most value to companies. In fact, I would argue that "notably de-emphasizing ambition" will cancel out your technical superiority in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Here's a choice for your company's next hire:

1. A technically superior but comfortable candidate whose top priority is maintaining work-life balance and flexible work arrangements

2. A technically adequate but hungry candidate whose top priority is moving fast and learning tons

Who would you choose?

[lugg]

1., 2. Sounds like a pain in the arse to manage while I work at maintaining my work-life balance.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. There is also

3. Technically superior whose top priority of learning things got them where they are. Maintaining work life balance is just one of the many tools this person has learned over the years to be consistently effective over the long term instead of running into burnout.

[jcbrand]

I'd choose the first and I don't consider "moving fast and learning tons" very compelling.

That might just mean that the 2nd person would try to shoehorn projects into new frameworks and discount working solutions for shiny new (and cutting edge) tech. All in the name of "moving fast and learning tons".