[infamouscow]

I disagree. How many interviews do you think it takes for someone to realize lying yields better results?

When "things get difficult" is a catch-all of subjective nonsense and to paint it in a more charitable light is intellectually dishonest.

Whenever "things get difficult"—whatever that means—you can count on the recruiter not being around and is why their opinion does not count for much. Often companies will let referrals skip introductory recruiter call entirely. Recruiters are invaluable to form cohesive teams in a startup, but they're glorified secretaries for hiring managers at a large corporation.

Anyone that believes they can deduce a person's commitment to some abstract mission statement based on a few historical facts and a couple hours of interviews is not a serious thinker. It denies the genius 1000x engineer whom quit to move across the country and take care of a sick family member or two. And it denies people with the self-respect to say no to unethical demands by executives. This might be a minority of applicants, but claiming to hire the best necessarily means reducing the type II error rate to zero.

[shehjar]

I never said theres a catch all meaning to difficult situations. Every one has to draw their own lines about it. I understand its in fashion to talk about RTO as a difficult situation and it certainly is for a large segment of employees but would it also be a difficult situation for a developer if they are asked to follow a coding style at work that does not conform to their own personal style?

Some might say yes, thats a difficult situation while others might say how stupid that is to make a situation out of that.

The point was, the difficulty levels can vary and employers would like to know where an employee stands so as to gauge fit with the ups-and-downs of a particular context of that particular organization.