Technology used to be a bit more immune to cronyism in the past, now it's epidemic for anything above grunt positions - for grunts grueling interviews are in place, for higher ups it's now totally who knows whom and who does something for whom. I want to throw up every time my organization posts a new job position at a higher level and I get bombarded by managers inquiring if their friend or two can't get in there, bypassing whoever would be deserving the spot by working at a lower level - frankly, I don't understand how those people can look into a mirror...
It'll always move to "who you know" for the most desirable jobs regardless of industry. The top 5-10% are going to look exactly the same when you have a large number of resumes.
Especially very early in the career. A new grad will have top school, top grades, but one will have worked at McDonald's and the other at Burger King, a third at Wendy's. With people looking so similar, you'll need to decide on less meaningful stuff like who's recommended the applicant and trivia questions. One job I applied to had 1000 resumes, interviews for 100, full day interviews for 25, and hired 2. The 2 had family members who were CEO/Chairman level clients to firm.
For tech, there has been amazing amount of entrepreneurship where meritocracy rules, but for the big organizations it will be "who you know".
Its about whom you can trust to solve problems and decide wisely -- It always has been and until there is a clearly rational way to evaluate trustworthiness to do an ambiguous job, it always will be.
> Technology used to be a bit more immune to cronyism in the past
No, I think this isn't the case. It certainly hasn't in the past couple of decades, unless you're thinking ridiculously further back. Even then, have you ever asked your mates "hey, do you know X, are they any good?"
