Lots of monocultures exist in hiring even without an algorithmic scoring system. That's roughly how every stupid hiring fad works, and how it's always worked, because most employers have no idea how to identify great potential employees.

Hiring managers and companies choose algorithms and hiring fads because they don't know how to be really certain of who to hire, so they'll settle for either assuming someone else's expertise will save them, or for some rubric that "everyone is doing" so it "can't be that bad".

When I first became a hiring manager, I was working for a public university. Our salaries were limited, being staff rather than faculty and being public servants, to between 1/3 and 1/2 the going salary for equivalent cybersecurity professionals in the private sector. I did not have the option to hire the people everyone else was trying to hire. I also faced one of the key risks of working in a public institution: once you keep someone past their probationary period, it is very, very hard to fire them. So, it's important not to get it wrong. I learned some things that I have carried forward into every hiring manager or senior leadership role since:

1. I base hiring practices on Manager Tools behavioral interviewing systems (https://manager-tools.com). No affiliation, they've just made my work life better.

2. I became really good at understanding what my team or organization really needs. Most hirers focus way too much on "years of experience" and specific technologies than is usually wise. As my favorite former supervisor said, "I can teach a smart person cybersecurity, but I can't teach a dumb [or unmotivated] cybersecurity person to be smart."

3. I became really good at developing people, and ensuring that the managers under me were as well. We couldn't lay someone off just because their technical specialty became irrelevant, so we couldn't afford to hire people who weren't lifelong learners, or to fail as coaches to ensure that learning was always taking place.

4. I cast as wide a net as my HR and regulatory overlords would let me (and now, as a business leader, I cast a huge net). I look for things that aren't just useful at the moment, but are useful long term, in my candidates. I don't care about pedigree.

I end up paying less for good employees due to simple supply and demand: I often go for the diamonds in the rough that don't have 10 competing offers.

I end up having really good employees who generally stay with me long term, because I apply long-term thinking in hiring, and structure my teams around constant learning and development.

I dodge a LOT of bullets... people who have just the right pedigree to look like great hires worth a lot of money, but who'll disappoint me until the day they leave.

When it's a tight labor market -- too few candidates for roles I care about -- I'm tapping a hiring market that other managers aren't aware enough of, and still finding talent while they have roles that sit open for months.