i mean, i think i'm largely centered on hiring and promotions in considering this... how does one hire or promote in a non-biased way? it doesn't make sense to only promote the loudest or most aggressive people in jobs where those qualities aren't important in the position description. you should always be promoted for your amazing work with what actually is in your position description and it should speak for itself... or perhaps promoted into a position that better matches the sophisticated work you do (if you are already doing much more than is in your position description). mainly at every step, from application, to interviews, to hiring and promotions, it should be pretty transparent what is going on.
it's just so complicated because you could also have a person you hired for having the best qualifications - which that's another tricky one. sometimes without being able to use any of one's intuition in hiring as that is where all the biases hide, it ends up being hiring only the most qualified... and sometimes i don't think it should be because if a job for instance has a short learning curve if someone has met the base qualifications, then making a final determination on having the most exceptional qualifications seems actually biased lol. (it can promote the catch 22 where people have no experience so struggle to get a job but can't gain exp. because they struggle getting a job.)
once you've hired "the most qualified" person it could turn out their personality clashes with everyone else. this is something people could sense with their intuition but if you are being unbiased your intuitive hands are tied... but you were right... however, it could be this "clash of personalities" is just a cover for actual prejudice against sex or religion or race or whatever. if it was based on working style--it would good to recognize what the reigning working style is and to just somehow be upfront about how things are done in your workplace that make it unique but also incompatible with certain working styles...
and if one person is being difficult then perhaps their social skills (would need to be listed more specifically what "social skills" are desired) are too shitty for the job. but it's clearly context dependent too.
anyway, i feel like all of these considerations just make everything too systematized. but maybe if in the end AIs did all the hiring it would actually be better? but i just feel like hiring processes are in a way often out-dated for what is trying to be accomplished. and i think job mobility and matching is a problem. so it would really be nice to have a standardized system including all jobs where you can place yourself and then see your matches (but not in the vague ways available now). if it was all coordinated through AI it could make it possible to move quickly and tweak things as you go along. so if an AI didn't put you in a compatible job you could adjust some things. it's just that this would make us less innovative as a society probably... so i guess i don't think everything could be done by AI... it would be important for some companies to not do that in fact.
i feel like badges
are related to this.