Kyle Lee7 said:Actually, I don't think it reflects the employers themselves, but rather the perception people have of them.
That being said, if you're looking at a massive government agency or a huge bureaucracy—well, I won't even go there because those places are driven by red tape and endless formalities.
But when you're dealing with a private company, where you actually need someone competent to get the job done properly—that's different. You want someone who actually knows their stuff and wants to work, and honestly, you can't fake your way through that for long.
What kind of manager would I be if I hired someone based on an act, only to realize they're incompetent and end up having to do two people's jobs myself?
So that explains why most people around here land jobs through "referrals"—which is really just a polite way of saying "who you know." It might be slightly less common in the private sector than in government agencies, but it’s certainly more prevalent in domestic companies compared to major US corporations. That says quite a bit on its own.
America is only just beginning its transition from a capital-driven economy to a knowledge-based one—a shift the developed world completed roughly seventeen years ago. Most employers aren't intentionally sabotaging their own success; rather, they are doing so unconsciously. Because a vast majority lack the necessary educational foundation, they remain oblivious to the true value of human capital. They simply don't realize the damage they're causing.
Do you realize that the first major studies on how human factors drive corporate productivity were conducted in the U.S. between 1927 and 1932? It’s striking that while Americans were uncovering these insights nearly a century ago, we didn't even begin to consider them until after the fall of communism—and even then, only really within the last decade. It feels like we're still struggling to accept what they realized eighty years ago. There is still this prevailing mindset here that people naturally dislike working or avoiding responsibility, so why bother giving them autonomy or influence? Instead, the standard practice remains rooted in rigid hierarchies and micromanagement, attempting to force execution through strict control rather than engagement.
Please don't try to tell me otherwise. I’ve spent the last four years auditing domestic companies, and I can tell you that management incompetence here has reached an entirely new dimension. It's honestly tragic; most people who actually know what they're doing lack any real leverage because, in this country, the line between executive roles and ownership is far too blurred.
Here is a fresh example where anonymity is guaranteed, but let’s assume we are talking about one of those big-name corporations. Loans are maturing in foreign currency while leasing payments come in in USD, leading to millions in losses. You point out the discrepancy, but they aren't exactly eager to fix it. What else is there to say about the American economy? They won't risk their massive profits by simply correcting the books, and frankly, the human element seems pretty insignificant to them at that scale. I'll give credit where it's due—there are exceptions, of course, as there are still capable and driven employers in this country—but they represent a tiny fraction. In many ways, incompetence is just synonymous with how business is done here. And it isn't even strictly a mindset issue; looking at how much more efficient the Canadians are compared to us tells you everything you need to know. Look at how they handled the fallout when Walmart faced restructuring issues; it was obvious that any major player would try to dominate the market, which would naturally shake up the local food industry. Instead, we tend to hand over advantages that allow outsiders to dismantle us rather than trying to protect our own interests.
Everything I’ve laid out just highlights how nonsensical modern hiring practices have become. Take my old firm, for example: we had a guy who crushed every technical assessment we threw at him, yet they passed on him simply because he showed up to the interview in jeans. They viewed it as a lack of discipline. It’s absurd. About thirty years ago, a major study was conducted—one that most people here wouldn't be familiar with—analyzing the common traits of about 40 of the most successful long-term corporations. One key finding was that these companies actually tolerated eccentricity over rigid discipline. Yet today, companies hire based on sheer self-confidence, charisma, and "personality" rather than actual expertise. The root cause is pure arrogance. Managers are so convinced of their own abilities that they prioritize hiring people who are easy to manage and delegate to. It’s a total failure, and frankly, it feels like we're sliding thirty or forty years backward.
I won't even begin to explain how little they actually understand about employee motivation. The most basic rule when dealing with people on a manufacturing floor is simple: don't drown them in unproductive busywork, like endless administrative reports and such. Yet, 90% of employers do exactly that—mostly because they lack the insight, and frankly, they aren't even trying to find it. We could go on about this for days...
