33e

I asked that question, expecting this response. I think there's something deeper at play.

E.g. under traditional hiring you only do a background check at the end - this means there are implicit decisions being made that nobody calls out explicitly during the process.

The reality is any person in an org actually has to act in the interest of the shareholders - people who are lower down the totem pole do what their manager says - but the manager of a manager of a manager is held accountable by the shareholders via the board. Shareholders want who is the best person not who is someone's preferred hire (which can be for reasons that have nothing to do with productivity). If there was a way to enforce this - you can bet they would.

Essentially what I'm saying is, because the existing systems suck we fall back on mechanisms like this.

The real blame lies at the door of the folks who created a lot of things who were incredibly naive that others wouldnt come in to profit from it.

Why is this? Is it partly influenced by the fact that LinkedIn etc suck?