[shehjar]

The recruiter perspective has some relevance too.

A question in their minds is whether candidates have the tenacity to stick through ups and downs of a company. This happens very frequently and I guess the employers are trying to gauge whether people will up and leave the moment things get difficult.

it may merit some nuanced explanation when such a question comes up.

[netdevnet]

"the moment things get difficult"

What does that mean? The company on freefall? The company reversing WFH policies that are in your contract?

You have generalised a huge number of situations into one phrase and implied that employees should suffer it through. Would companies suffer it through "the moment things get difficult" with an employee if they had the chance of not suffering it through? No, they would just fire the employee.

You can only expect reciprocity in a business transaction. And that is what employment is.

[jbs789]

I think this is an important perspective. That is, think about why the recruiter is asking and focus on how you address those concerns. With the experience you have now, you should be well placed to ask questions early to find the right fit for the long run. (Or at least that’s an angle I’d consider!)

[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.