Where does this assumption come from that rejecting the majority of candidates leads to better results? At some point you're just cutting into the bone and rejecting candidates that are perfectly acceptable. The more candidates you reject, the more time you waste and the more people come out of your interview with a negative experience of the company. These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. Nobody wri…
It's not just those costs. The real cost is the phenomenal candidate you do miss. If engineering talent follows a power distribution, as I believe it does, then a single mistaken "no hire" can mean more productivity than the all the rest of your engineering hiring for the quarter. Perhaps this is why Ben Horrowitz made such a strong case that for key roles you should, "Hire on strength, not on a lack of weaknesses."
But when I'm taking about not being afraid to make a "no hire" call, I'm not talking about the incredibly strong candidates. They tend to shine pretty well if you don't have a hiring process that is difficult for the sake of being difficult (e.g. brain teasers and whiteboarding). When I talk about not being afraid to dismiss someone, I'm talking about the (perhaps admirable) human urge to give an underwhelming candidate another shot.