I find it interesting that people seem to think that there was a time when this wasn't the case.
I think it is potentially true in a small-group setting. And by that, I mean that magic number around 150 people where you can have a fully-connected network.
The moment you cross that mark, the network can no longer maintain full connection. That is the very same point when signaling worth becomes important. And humans have had organizations larger than 150 people for a very long time.
I've posted before about "meritocracy" being a fairy tale that technical workers need to stop telling themselves:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978841#10980628
EDIT: Sorry, was off on Dunbar's number, which is 150. Though I think the constraints required for a desired organization without signaling are a bit heavier -- you need to not only maintain the social network, but also the value of each person.
"An infernal situation. There is no solidarity in a meritocracy, and no reward for merit with solidarity."
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14022296)
The semantic and meaning packed in that is deep to the core of unions and the rights of an individual. Not only that, it also unpacks why a meritocracy is wanted when the individual is a genius. I'd think it's one of the best quotes of the year, thus far.
Yeah, marketing matters. Take a look at any successful business and see how much they spend on marketing vs product development.
Perhaps, personal career management ought to reflect that ratio.
Unfortunately, having an HR department mediate the experience for you in a shitty way on your behalf is not a very rewarding experience!