On the contrary, I've found that great engineers are more concerned about flimsy interview processes. They know that everyone else will be picked by roughly the same process that they are. They want to have confidence that their colleagues will be good.

(I agree that soft skills are critical, though. I work at Stripe, and part of the reason we picked this set of interviews is to assess those soft skills in something as close to a real-life situation as can be approximated in a few hours.)

I'm not calling myself a great engineer, but I've actually been hesitant to accept job offers in which I wasn't given a challenging interview. A challenging interview is not always indicative of a good job, of course, but with the investment I've made into my skills, I don't want them to languish.

I worked for 2.5 years for a company who interviewed me for 5 hours straight. I had no warning about how long it would last, and it seemed that if I'd been struggling at any point they would have called a halt and said thanks.

That said, their interview process was all fiddly little tests, although since they were in the habit of hiring arts students and training them to code, particularly philosophers who'd done a little formal logic, they weren't about "algorithms", more just little brain teasers with simple, made up languages, and follow up questions like "could you make this any faster?"