[sdw1]

My experiences at every company I've worked for (and the reasons I've departed from them) in my career have all given me additional signals to scan for in the recruitment stage, be it tech stack, culture, advancement, mentorship, etc. It's not a perfect system, but it's self-reinforcing and constantly improving -- I'm fortunate to be able to select for things I need/want and am not currently getting when I'm actively searching. This includes a comparatively brief but ultimately very stressful period of unemployment where the most important signal was "this role will pay me a salary".

Some bottom-of-the-barrel firehouses will absolutely disqualify themselves through their signaling in interview loops. But I think the reality is that at most places the dysfunction just won't become evident until you've been working there for a bit and the cracks start showing.

Which brings us back to another huge advantage of tech -- I think the "safest" landing spot (assuming your personal non-negotiables are satisfied) is the spot that gives you the most financial security to leave when you've seen enough. Assuming you have a good handle on your standards/costs of living and risk tolerance, after a certain breakpoint, more money saved means more time and less time-pressure to find the signals you care about. I don't think a "dream job" exists for me, but a better one always does.

[edmcnulty101]

> But I think the reality is that at most places the dysfunction just won't become evident until you've been working there for a bit and the cracks start showing

This has been my experience too.

Companies rigorously test candidates for the right fit.

But I have not yet found how to accurately test for a company with a sane healthy working environment.