Having done a lot of hiring and recruiting lately, I've been struck by the deep asymmetries of information and power involved in the process of building a team. Because the organization has the money, it can compel the applicant (supplicant?) to complete intelligence tests and personality assessments, ask lots of questions about background and knowledge and experience, require completion of a sample work task or delivery of a short-term project, perform background checks, call character references, and just about whatever else the hiring manager or HR department can dream up. Yet how much information does the applicant get to truly learn about the organization or, especially, the hiring manager? Consider that, supposedly, 50% of voluntary terminations occur because the employee does not like or agree with or get along with the employee's manager - yet the fundamental asymmetry of the hiring process means that the employee is mostly in the dark about potential problems in this key aspect of the employment relationship.

What would it look like to create a much more transparent process and level playing field? Consider a few possibilities:

Can you imagine any existing organization allowing such things? If not, what does that tell you about the health of the relationship between an organization and its potential employees?

Peter Saint-Andre > Journal