Thanks for being understanding and compassionate about the situation! I like your idea of a time limited freelance gig, though immigration obstacles do sometimes make that quite complicated (as in my current situation). It's way better than not considering that people might have a reason for a resume with gaps or other irregularities which is not being a bad employee.

Beyond immigration types of obstacles, somehow recruiters and hiring managers rarely consider how many bad managers, bad executives, and bad companies there are when evaluating gaps and short tenures in an employee's resume. But equally, discussing those matters during an interview risks being seen as unprofessional and unreasonably negative. "Why did you leave this company?" "Oh, the warnings I got about the leadership from a former employee before I joined turned out to be true, and they didn't want to hear professionally presented necessary feedback about emotional safety in an emergency incident response situation, so they fired me without a single meaningful 1:1 discussion other than trying to assign blame." / "Oh, the CEO was enough of a problem that the investors eventually replaced him in a subsequent funding round despite him being the majority shareholder, but that was long after I had resigned or been fired due to that CEO's particular problems." / "Oh, they communicated in a very idiosyncratic way which didn't work for me and which I haven't seen at any company before or since." / etc. Most of that doesn't fly in an interview, but equally, even if it did, saying too much of that sounds like making up excuses for oneself even when it's 100% true. Same thing for why a job search doesn't succeed quickly.

Ours is a messy and imperfect industry, and it sucks that interview candidates have to pretend otherwise to seem like they'll be reasonable employees. Meanwhile the companies and executives that act in those ways get to present whatever positive and successful image they want, and they get to praise each other for firing fast or cutting costs with attrition or layoffs.

Well, it could be "just" naive hiring processes. It's pretty natural for people to use themselves and their immediate circles as thought guinea pigs for any process they come up with. And unfortunately, quite often, people in positions of power don't work their way up there, so it takes more effort than they are usually willing to invest to relate. Which is a shame, because doing things beyond what everybody else is doing can be a huge advantage.

One of the problems I see in big corporates is that feedback cycles for bad policy can be so long, whoever caused something is far away when the effects hit. AKA nobody really cares. But to be fair, I've always tried to care, and worked with many others who do.