You're right of course. However, interviewing is a game of limited information and I consider all signal I get from the company (after all, they're doing the same with me). I think a few things had to be broken in order for an employee to feel strongly this way, end up in the interviewing panel, and feel comfortable to share their views.

Nowadays it may be easier somewhat to get some insight into inner workings, but in 2006 there was no Blind, Glassdoor, etc. Sometimes the positive signals outweigh the negative. In my case they did not.

I too have seen a lot of people in upper management who shouldn’t be there. I wonder if this means that nobody really deserves the respect and power we show to upper management.

They’re just people like everyone else, subject to the same psychological failings as anyone.

Giving people a lot of power over other people might just be a recipe for disaster.

Of course I’ve met some compelling leaders and I’ve seen them replaced with total fools so maybe there are people who are better at it than others. (Eric Schmidt springs to mind as an example of the former and Sundar whatever his name is an example of the latter) Maybe it’s just hard to tell the difference. Or maybe our selection process is flawed.