Phrase of the Day: Information asymmetry edition

Dave Rupert mentioned the phrase "information asymmetry" in a ShopTalk Show episode where he was talking about applying for jobs in tech. He was refering to how employers hold all the information and don't reveal it until they ask you about it. You're expected to show up and be ready to answer any question under the sun off the top of your head. And then if they don't hire you, you rarely get any sort of feedback to help improve your chances in the next interview. "Corporate policy dictates that we can't reveal our process."

Information asymmetry creates an imbalance of power in transactions, which can sometimes cause the transactions to be inefficient, causing market failure in the worst case. Examples of this problem are adverse selection, moral hazard, and monopolies of knowledge.
Wikipedia

I didn't realize before today that there was a term for what I generally think of as being "I like to be a jerk want all the power, and want to hold information over you rather than share it in a way that would benefit everyone involved" but apparently the information asymmetry model of monopoly of knowledge is a better way to put it:

In the model of monopolies of knowledge, the ignorant party has no right to access all the critical information about a situation for decision-making. Meaning one party has exclusive control over information. This type of information asymmetry can be seen in government. An example of monopolies of knowledge is that in some enterprises, only high-level management can fully access the corporate information provided by a third party. At the same time, lower-level employees are required to make important decisions with only limited information provided to them

I've seen it in church leadership who think situations will work out better if they gatekeep information from other parties involved, singling out themselves or select others worthy of being the keepers of knowledge and therefore the only ones who can make decisions about situations affecting the greater community.

To be clear, there are certainly circumstances where limiting knowledge of something can be important, if only for a specific time period (i.e. if someone is resigning and you want to let everyone know at once, not have it trickle out slowly and cause concern or undue panic.)

But hiding decisions and conversations behind closed doors, bringing people in for interviews or conversations without giving them adequate time or information to prepare, and generally trying to withhold information because you think you are the chosen few?

Stuff like that makes me want to, as Chris Coyier said in the episode, "flip a bucket".