This is the prime example how one makes false assumptions and then build a whole train of thoughts and arguments so to justify that inherent false cause which i

This is the prime example how one makes false assumptions and then build a whole train of thoughts and arguments so to justify that inherent false cause which is not proven in any way. Namely: people who are CEOs and (hiring) managers are not even close to be the best. More often than not they are instead: privileged, socially well positioned and well educated people who have the right connections to rely on. It seems the author have never heard of nepotism either. Or the so ubiquitous way of hiring former institution leaders as industry lobbyists, etc. And one more false assumption: interviewers can better judge the skills of the candidate than the candidate itself. Where is this myth stemming from? No clue. Other than the ton of false assumptions it is based on it's a good read still.