Why? Hiring manager A doesn't want subordinate employee B who knows more about the work of A than A does, or is better at office politics, meeting customers, m

Why? Hiring manager A doesn't want subordinate employee B who knows more about the work of A than A does, or is better at office politics, meeting customers, managing people, etc. Or, manager A wants only subordinates (secondary, submissive, subservient, subordinate, dedicated, devoted, obsequious, obedient, etc.!). Manager A may be willing to hire experienced, capable people as outside consultants, e.g., lots of lawyers, physicians, licensed professional engineers, other experts get hired. The norms of an old Henry Ford factory are still there: The manager knows more, and the subordinate is there to add routine muscle to the work of the manager. That manager A acts this way is explained in the B-school, sociology, and public administration subject of Organizational Behavior and, in particular, well named, goal subordination. That is, manager A is looking out for the career of manager A, not to see how much smarts he can bring into the larger company. Of course, a CEO owner might be different: He doesn't have to worry about a subordinate replacing him. But, sure, if the CEO reports to a BoD, then there is a worry that the board will kick out the CEO and promote one of the CEO's subordinates. Ah, sure, but a CEO owner might worry about a very capable subordinate leaving and competing with him (the CEO)! Also an older worker might be more likely to file a law suit on discrimination of some kind. Sure, the flip side of this slippery coin can be an opportunity for an older, more capable worker -- start their own business and beat the company that is still stuck with lots of goal subordination. Back to it!