Most career consultants would tell you that it's important during an interview not only to answer the company's questions, but also to interview the interviewer. This supposedly means you're "switched on" - a "go-getter" - not some kind of jobslut that will take whatever job is offered. Interviewing the interviewer should, in theory, also improve the selection process, by helping candidates self select.
In reality, candidates sometimes ask intelligent questions, but often ask softball questions for which the interviewer has rehearsed responses, like "we work and play hard," or "If you make a contribution, your work will definitely be recognized," or "it's a friendly work environment." Oh come on. Just once I'd like to hear: "If you make a contribution, your boss will take the credit," or "a lot of people are competitive, poorly mannered jerks in the office." I remember once a large consultancy's HR representative asked me, during a 5-hour multi-stage interview, whether I had gone to their on-campus presentation weeks before. I said "no, those presentations are all the same." I digress.
The problem is that there are no official documents or processes to enforce this bi-directional flow of information between candidate and interviewer. There are no standard questions a candidate might ask an interviewer that elicit insightful answers. We have CVs and resumes for candidates, but not the equivalent for companies. We have psychometric tests for candidates, but no group-culture examinations for the hiring companies. We have references for candidates, but what of the company? What are we to read, the annual report, or the classic PR sales job? Should we listen to Jobcasts? None of this information gives us enough of what we're looking for.
My Angle
I present to you the idea of a Corporate CV. Inside the Corporate CV we have a collection of valuable information, such as:
- Corporate Culture: a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the company's values and processes based on structured questionnaires deployed to employees;
- Employee List: list of people you can talk to that actually work there;
- Accomplishments: things that employees in the company have been able to achieve while at the company;
- Jobs available: simple enough, but also linked to the above.
Think of it. The process of matching candidate and company would be improved, increasing employee retention rates, as employees would self-select and know better what they were getting into. We as candidates can see how our own personality and talents might match the company in its current form, or compensate for the company's deficiencies.
Before you work at a company, wouldn't you want to know: "Who works there? What's it like to work there? What kind of things can a person get done there? What kind of culture do they have? Is my personality a match? Are they direct or indirect when they communicate? What's the management like? What's the career development process?" There's no reason we can't begin to standardize this, but it would first take a structure and a community effort on the part of a company's employees and past employees. Partners, suppliers and customers could potentially feed into this Corporate CV.
Some companies would resist this sort of thing, but I think it's inevitable. The search for talent is always a competitive one - that much more so in the era of global business. So companies are looking for ways to differentiate from one another as potential places to work. And the Internet and Web 2.0 are built for the exchange of information and building of communities.
I won't kid you: I have a project in motion to address this issue. The Bi-directional flow of information is one of three roles that a successful company can play in the new Liquid HR economy - so this is my angle on being a player.
Comments