Why It's Time To Dump Your Old-School Hiring Practices

About Us

Advertise

Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First

[close this box]

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/18/2016 | 10:20:11 AM

Adding to the problem

What happens when "inclusive" hiring practices are implemented in the real world is you get candidates scheduled for 3-hour to 6-hour (if not longer) face-to-face interviews -- after already facing a battery of phone interviews with stakeholders (and I use that term loosely) at all levels -- with several different people. And then again for a second such interview. Maybe a third. Maybe more.

And the more hurdles you make your candidates jump over to please you -- and, in this case, EVERYONE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT OR COMPANY -- the more you make yourself a less attractive place to work. Job hunting is a full-time, er, job. Consequently, any new barrier you infuse into the hiring process translates to drop-offs in the number of qualified, talented candidates you'll get. (If "eliminating resumes" -- regardless of the aptitude of the candidate -- is a recruiting department's goal, then that recruiting department is lazy at best, inept at worst.) If I'm a job seeker, my time is better spent completely avoiding companies like these and instead interviewing with companies that know how to make a consarned decision and don't mind risking "failing fast." I'll also be happier working at such a company.

Plus: if you have a diversity problem at your company, I cannot imagine asking everyone to agree on one person is going to help.

Respectfully, fie on this.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/18/2016 | 12:49:11 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

I'm all for getting rid of the resume as a screening tool. It used to be that you could use them as a means of assessing their writing skills, but with the advent of resume writing services, templates and downright copying other's resumes off the internet, it's become useless for that.

I do like the infographic alternative to a resume, but then again, people typically outsource those to someone else as well.

So what else can a company do? Take a vote - hmmmm, you lost me there. I agree with Joe on the negative impact that might have on diversity. Also, what if your boss or your boss' boss makes it clear they prefer a certain candidate over another - doesn't that put everyone under duress to vote for that person? I have a friend in a similar situation where she's trying to hire someone and her boss has a clear frontrunner. She felt she had to hire that person even though it was ultimately "her decision."

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/19/2016 | 4:23:48 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

> It used to be that you could use them as a means of assessing their writing skills, but with the advent of resume writing services, templates and downright copying other's resumes off the internet, it's become useless for that.

To which I respectfully reply: So what?

Other than at such a professional resume-writing service, in what job on the planet would you need to be good at writing a resume?

Alas, thanks to automation and "innovation" in the HR/recruitment space, the pseudoscience of resume creation has taken up far too much of most adults' time and energy and does not actually do much to improve hiring efficiency or quality.

I don't care what your resume looks like. Can and will you do the job well? Great. You're hired.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

100%

vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/19/2016 | 4:41:47 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

@Joe - Oh come now - it used to be (and still can be) a valid means to showcase your writing/grammar/proofreading/communications skills. Ever see a resume with a dozen typos or misspellings? Or one that looks like a 3 year-old wrote it? Do you want to hire that person even if they can "do" the job - if we are talking about technology jobs, communication skills are key. Resume writing has become a "basic" communication skill.

You doth protest too much, methinks

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
7/20/2016 | 1:42:48 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

@vnewman, I think first time I ever disagreed with you in this forum. As contrary as I am, that almost counts as a miracle. :-)

I absolutely hated creating a resume. Especially after your career gets longer. What the heck do you put in and what do you leave out? How do you guess what is important to some HR screener who knows nothing about tech? Well, other than you chose a nice Word template? It's essentially bragging about yourself. And then the reader of resume has to try and determine if real or you made it all up. The fact resume looks great hardly helps with that.

If a person really produces a resume (in these days of templates and spell checkers) as poorly as your example, it won't take long to weed that out in the first interview.

But I will admit, not really clear to me from this article what replaces a resume as first point of contact to the company looking to hire. I could see progressive companies having a web based application form tailored for skills they are looking for in a job as the first elimination phase before interviews. Espcecially in tech where "needs 5 years of experience" hardly applies to brand new technologies not 5 years old yet. And Detroit Labs is all about creative people, the hardest to figure out good/bad during a hiring process.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/20/2016 | 5:17:43 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

@TerryB: My agreement with your points aside, there is also the issue of the automated resume-screening software -- which automatically throws out resumes that don't conform with the software's extremely specific expectations.

It took me years of unsuccessful job searching before I realized that a big part of the reason I wasn't getting anywhere is that my resume used to feature dates first (which used to be the standard way to write a resume) -- and that most resume-screening software works in such a way that where the date is featured first, it automatically disregards the entire job entry.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/20/2016 | 5:13:22 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

@vnewman: Any form of written/typed communication can showcase one's tendencies to make typos/mispell words/etc.. If that's the best defense for resumes as a key hiring tool, then it's a pretty poor one.

(I would also argue that the occasional spelling mistake should not completely blow a candidate out of the water. I have seen one of the most brilliant and talented marketing people I know -- and, I daresay, probably the best in her industry -- make occasional egregious spelling and grammatical errors (albeit moreso in personal communications -- not professional). If your resume is littered with errors, sure, there are some judgment issues there, but one or two probably shouldn't be an automatic candidacy killer except to the HR recruiter desperate for any reason to throw someone in the circular file. But this is a separate discussion altogether.)

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/24/2016 | 6:35:34 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

@joe I'm not defending use of the resume. I don't particularly care for them. But if it is going to be used as a screening instrument then for Petes sake - put the time and effort in to get it right. It's not a pop quiz. It's just sheer laziness to turn in a less than perfect one.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/24/2016 | 11:20:18 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

> It's just sheer laziness to turn in a less than perfect one.

It's sheer laziness to turn in a resume riddled with substantial errors and formatting issues. We agree on that.

A single typo or missing punctuation mark, however? Not sure I'd go so far as laziness (at least, in all -- or even most -- cases). I think we've all sent an email or memo or other document that had a regrettable typo.

(For my own part, I once turned in a 70-page brief to the Massachusetts Appeals Court that I spent consecutive sleepless weeks on, rereading and proofing the dang thing a zillion times as I tinkered with it. Turns out I left a few typos. NBD. I still won the case, my career remains intact, and I'm sure the panel of appellate judges don't think I am a lazy or incompetent person. Indeed, the opposing counsel on that case has since referred me clients.)

The "sheer laziness" philosophy sounds suspiciously like the old (and failed) consulting practice from the '90s of telling employees that if you can go a second without making a mistake, you can go a minute, you can go an hour, you can go a day, you can go the rest of your life.

I'm not saying, "hey, don't worry about typos." You and I are totally agreed there. I'm only saying that if you employ an entire department (or automated software system) to determine the best people to employ in your organization, and one of that department's primary and automatic exclusion policies is having zero tolerance for even the slightest typos no matter what, regardless of context or anything else the candidate may have to offer, you should fire that entire department and hire some human beings who know how to think.

HR people (esp. bad ones) concern themselves with typos. Meanwhile, when CEOs and other top execs bring in people themselves without the help of a "professional" recruiter, they have more important things to worry about than, say, if the potential hire has a superfluous punctuation mark.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/24/2016 | 4:10:33 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

Well you are comparing apples to oranges. A 70 page brief versus one page. Im not promoting zero tolerance but again it's one page. HR doesn't know anything about you so if you want to get a look you best put your best foot forward. Even if it's not from a human. It's just the way it is. You have to play the game.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/25/2016 | 11:32:38 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

> you best put your best foot forward

You get no disagreement from me there.

> It's just the way it is.

Competent and successful CEO I know just last week said "If I ever find myself saying, 'That's just the way things are done here,' it's time for me to retire."

> You have to play the game.

It's a losing game is my point -- for both sides.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 12:24:27 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

@Joe - I think we have somewhat of a similar stance in that - I think resumes are a waste of time and don't yield much useful information about a candidate. I'd like to see a shorter version of a resume implemented somehow where you list your job titles and skill set, not describe the general tasks you do every day.

But my "it's just the way it is" point is this: certain things aren't going to change anytime soon, so until they do, if you want to get ahead or your foot in the door for that matter, you need to play by the rules.

I work in the legal industry as well. I like to workout before or during work hours. Why can't I just come back in my yoga pants and finish my work? Well because we have clients coming in and out and it wouldn't look good because we have a certain image to project. But can't I do my job just as well in yoga pants? Sure, but that's just the way it is.

It's the same reason you don't go to court in pajamas to argue a case - the judge would throw you out. Why? Can't you litigate regardless of what you are wearing? Sure, but that's just the way it is. Appearances matter, unfortunately and that's true of your resume as well. It conveys information about you regardless of how smart or skilled you actually are.

I'd change the entire system if it were up to me. I'd do away with computer screening of resumes entirely. I'd have top candidates come in and actually work on some projects for a few days and see if they fit. That's a true work sample. But it is costly and most firms won't make that investment up front, they would rather pay for it later.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/21/2016 | 10:28:07 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

Infographic alternatives to traditional resumes can be cool, but (1) they are typically only respected in a small subset of fields (e.g., certain marketing and design jobs at cerrtain companies), and (2) are completely useless for the vast majority of enterprises that use Taleo, Brassring, and a bazillion other auto-trash services to filter people out. Anything non-standard is ditched. Innovative and effective communication in one to two pages takes a backseat to 10-page resumes repeating the same keywords and rewordings of the job description to the point of headache-inducing redundancy (or, rather, headache inducing if they were actually read and filtered by a human -- which they aren't until you reach the point where a human is looking at you -- at which point 90% of non-HR human hiring managers don't care too much about resume nitty gritty).

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/24/2016 | 6:48:01 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

Let's take it one step further. How would you screen applicants then? Just interview everyone?

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

100%

TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
7/18/2016 | 1:06:57 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

I'm with all the points Joe makes. You need to understand Detroit Labs is nobody yet. Plus I'm guessing you are based in Detroit, which is not likely to be a plus if trying to draw talent from all over the country. The phrase "beggers can't be choosers" comes to mind.

I appreciate the idea you are taking a fresh look at a very old process. But reality is, hiring is not that different from drafting talent in professional sports. Some will make it and some will not. And figuring out exactly why is more an art than a science.

One final thought. With everyone having veto, what if you are interviewing someone who is clearly gifted. I mean has the ability to make 3 of your current people go "bye bye". You really trust your current people will bring someone onboard that may cost them a future promotion or their current job?

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

diangelo1973,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/19/2016 | 4:46:10 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

Such negativity. Wow.

I think this is a wonderful way to find people that fit the culture you are striving for in a company. The idea of looking for people who have the atributs you desire even and then trusting that you have the infrastructre in place to bring those talents to a place where employees can thrive is awesome.

I think their entire interview process sounds refreshing. Its a great way to find people that could excel in a job they never held.

It's akin to finding the best athealte and trusting that you could help them be an all-star on your team.

Take me for example: I'm 42 and spent most of my adult life doing research and development for a company that makes car paint, I also am in the Screen Actors Guild and an Owner of an improv theater. Using the traditional hiring methods a company wouldn't look twice at me but they'd be missing out on someone with a metric ton of analitical thinking, a heap of showmanship, an overflow of loving life, a cavalade of creativity and a pinch of modesty.

I do not currently work for them, but reading this article makes me want to.

Chris DiAngelo

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
7/21/2016 | 1:34:23 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

So might we be on the verge of making the time-honored performing arts practice of auditioning standard proceedure when evaluating applicants for non-performing jobs?

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/24/2016 | 12:25:23 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

@jries: Isn't that what an interview is? ;)

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 1:55:58 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

No - it's not actually. An audition requires a performance - a interview is someone asking you some pre-selected questions. What an audition ultimately provides is a work sample, which - although it isn't frequently employed in most companies becuae it is time consuming and takes quite a bit of effort to implement - it is the one scientificantly proven means of predicting successful job placement/proformance.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/25/2016 | 11:25:17 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

Sure, they're not the same thing precisely, but speaking as someone who used to direct film and theatre both in school and for a living (before my legal career), I'd say it's more or less the same insofar as they involve performances.

And, having been on both sides of the table in both auditions and job interviews alike, I've observed that -- in general -- the performances in auditions tend to be the more genuine ones. ;)

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 10:56:45 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

Not really. In an interview, people talk about the job; in an audition, the applicant performs. I don't pretend this is realistic in occupations, but I think it is in the technical ones.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/25/2016 | 11:27:46 AM

Re: Adding to the problem

It's virtually the same.

Director at audition: "Demonstrate to me how you perform this song/monologue/scene."

Interviewer at audition: "Demonstrate to me how you solve this problem." (ESPECIALLY in the technical fields.)

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 2:17:05 PM

Re: Adding to the problem

Not the same; the first is actual performance, the second is hypothetical. I'm not saying that interviews are unimportant (quite the opposite), but that by themselves, they are insufficient to assess the level of actual proficiency. And the only thing resumes are good for is screening; and most of the time, they're not even very good at that.

What does qualify as actual performance in a technical setting is an actual example of one's work. For example, it has long been my employer's practice to assign an actual programming problem to applicants for programming positions. An engineering candidate could similarly be given a design problem. Nowadays, it would even be possible to ask a system administration candidate to submit a virtual machine configured in accordance with requirements given by the prospective employer. I even once read a story in which the owner of a garage asked a prospective mechanic to diagnose a car right there on site (struck me as good practice).

No sane employer would ever hire a graphic artist or a photograper based solely on paper credentials and an interview (even multiple interviews). I don't understand why anyone would hire a techie that way.

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

50%

rjrocker,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/20/2016 | 7:54:07 AM

We're Moving

Hi,

From this year onwards we're moving away from the old hiring process for our company MBAFrog. Recently we've hired a consultant for this job and within 3 months of time he will come up with a completely new process. I like the idea of "Getting to Know You" (GTKY). I will communicate this to our consultant. The article is indeed helpful. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Regards

RJ

Reply | Post Message | Messages List | Start a Board

Reports

The State of Cloud Computing - Fall 2020

Download this report to compare how cloud usage and spending patterns have changed in 2020, and how respondents think they'll evolve over the next two years.

Download Now!

More Reports