A Leveling of the Playing Field?

Traditionally, job interviews have never been anything close to a level playing field.  You need the job, but the hiring manager holds all the cards.  He or she can select you or any of the countless other candidates pounding on the office door.  You, on the other hand, have only your services to offer, so the weight is on your shoulders to prove yourself worthwhile. 

That may finally be changing.

The Internet has led to an explosion in available information that both job seekers and corporations are learning to exploit, but trends favor the former more than the latter.  Why?  Because job searchers' desperation makes them more likely than companies to use every available tool to learn about firms and positions.  Corporations, on the other hand, have to wait for applicants to come to them and then run the usual credit / background checks once selections are made.  Here's the problem:  The new tools will soon give applicants enough advance information to decide whether or not the interview should even take place.  

Glassdoor is one such example.  Unlike Hoovers or the Vault, which offer basic business insights (company profiles, competitors, financial performance, etc.) Glassdoor offers job seekers insight into the inner workings and experiences of actual employees at a given firm.  Workers post anonymous thoughts - both positive and negative - about what it's like to work at the company.  Salary ranges, interview experiences (including actual questions) are posted, as are additional tips and suggestions for interested applicants.  In short, the site is a gold mine of critical information an applicant should know before interviewing with the company - or even deciding whether the company is worth interviewing with in the first place.

This last point is where companies ignore the Internet at their own peril.  While it may be commonplace nowadays to interview candidates for positions that don't exist or for jobs that are ultimately canceled if they ever existed in the first place, in the long run such shoddy practices risk getting the company blacklisted on any number of different job-related Web sites.  In the not-too-distant future, multiple postings from mistreated applicants will make it increasingly difficult for companies to hire the talent that they need to succeed.  And while one can always dismiss a few negative postings as the inevitable disgruntled complaints from a few bad apples,  multiple criticisms on different sites will eventually be seen as a warning for prospective employees to either stay away or to ask very direct, challenging questions that will almost certainly catch unprepared interviewers by surprise.

In fact, according to a recent white paper by Simplyhired, the job market of the future will be marked by almost perfect information as both candidates and companies know more about one another long before meeting for an actual interview.  However, the changing dynamics will come to favor the candidate as the process evolves:

In the future, job seekers will be able to access a complete and accurate picture of all information related to a job opportunity. For example: a mechanical engineer in San Francisco will be able to view available jobs and top hiring companies not only in his field and location, but in other areas as well ... He will know that the salary range is $62,000 to $84,000, and that the top hiring companies for his field are Southwest Airlines, Raytheon and Ford. He will also be able to note that while transportation remains a top industry for his occupation, there are a growing number of mechanical engineering jobs in a different industry (aerospace), or a different location (Atlanta). Knowing this, he may approach job search in an entirely new way. By centralizing job listings with all the other information that job seekers must consider, future job search applications will be able to build a holistic picture of each potential job opportunity. Job seekers will be able to compare positions side-by-side and point-by-point, allowing them to make informed decisions for their individual situations.

True Example:  Several months ago I interviewed with one of the Big Four firms for a consulting position.  The manager asked for my salary requirements, and when I answered, she grimaced.  "I'm sorry," she said.  "But that's outside our range for this position."  I smiled and opened one of the folders I had brought and took out a printout that showed the different salary ranges her company reportedly paid for various positions.  Her eyes widened.  "Where did you get this?" she demanded.  I politely explained that as a good candidate, it was my job to research a company "as thoroughly as possible" before an interview.  "May I keep this?" she asked.  "I know what I'm going to be checking when I get back to my desk!" 

Now, admittedly, disproving the manager's assertion in this manner may have been counterproductive to my job search - I never did receive an offer from that particular firm after the interview - but knowing what the reported ranges were going into the interview did empower me in ways that would not have been possible before the Internet.  And while one should certainly always be suspicious of anything found online, being able to locate and cross-check such information on various sites gives the candidate a much better ability to challenge mistaken (or false) assertions about jobs and their reported pay scales. 

In short, the playing field may finally be starting to level in ways that finally begin to favor the candidate as opposed to the company.  Expect this to shake things up in the very near future.