I once did a psychometric evaluation with a psychologist poking around in my psyche in front of the hiring managers. On a Sunday. In another country. It was really weird. I had answered a battery of 240 questions some weeks prior, and now my results were being analyzed by a registered shrink while the potential hiring manager watched. It took close to 2 hours, but there were no real time limits. Apparently, I'm quite diplomatic and optimistic (I'll leave out any potentially bad scores or flagrant boasts). The real juicy part was when they departed from professional and started in on personal stuff. But what the hell, I signed up for the torrents of international business a long time ago.
So what's the fundamental problem with interviews? For that matter, the hiring process in general? Answer: It's way too one-sided. Companies learn all about us - we don't really learn about them. We can't apply the same scrutiny. This is strange, as it would help both us and the hiring companies if we did have such access.
Let me be gratuitous: rather than acting as if they are looking for a mate, partner, or a business equivalent, companies are still looking for commodities to acquire (candidates). Each commodity item has an ingredients label (CV or resume), and the hiring process allows the company to inspect the commodity, kick its tires, raise its lips above its gum line, see if gets along well with others. Psychometrics. Reference checks. Interviews.
The Golden Rule:
My feeling is that by allowing candidates to do gain equivalent access to information about the company, the candidate will feel more comfortable and respected, the selection / matching process will be greatly improved, and employee retention will improve. We need a CV for companies. We need a corporate culture analysis equivalent to an individual's psychometric analysis. We need a bi-directional flow of information.
When in interviews they ask me if "I'm a glass half full" or a "glass half empty" guy, I respond but ask them the same question.
Comments