Recruitment is an interesting beast. We are all after the same thing initially, exposure. Exposure in order to attract the best talent, exposure in order to promote our company, and exposure to portray the right perception of our company as an Employer. We are all in the business of attracting and hiring PEOPLE.
There are multitudes of methods used, and we try to be as personal as we can. We are after talent, people, the greatest asset to our business and the personal touch counts for most of this relationship. We want to talk to them, schmooze them, and convince them that we are right for them and vice versa.
Why then, is it the most simplest piece of this puzzle and process, the least personal of it all. What am I talking about? The humble Resume. Sure we get a name and phone number, but why is that the only thing we get to learn about someone initially? We are to afraid (and more so the candidate) of displaying a DOB, and god forbid a photo should be attached. What benefit could there be in seeing how a person presents themselves? We just want to know that they are degree educated, have done the same job for the last 5 years, and will work for the money that is being offered.
It was pointed out to me this morning, by someone that has never put any thought into this before, that the humble resume is the least personal part of the recruitment cycle, a candidate, an every day person, someone who wants to feel that he is a little more then skills and degrees.
Has the resume got to a point where all we want is skills and education, and the a candidates personality, goals and desires and what makes them tick is left to chance? I may be biased (wait I am a little) but adding a video profile (with the right expectations – read my previous article for more on this) to the mix would at least, from the candidates viewpoint, let them feel as if they are offering more then the skills, responsibilities and academic qualifications that we all put so much weight behind.
Lateral thinking and flexibility seems to have gone out the door. The resume has become black and white (another type of black and white) and the personal touch and feeling has been totally removed. We are hiring people, people with personalities, opinions and style, why don’t we “let them speak for themselves”.
Speaking for themselves… isn’t that what an interview is for?
Dan,
Of course, but that is the second part of the process. Can you say without doubt that every candidate that has come across your desk you have been able to ascertain their cultural fit, personality and drive and ambition from their resume. All I am saying is that resumes are to skills and education focused, we are hiring people, why not get the most you can from them, from the start.
Justin and Dan,
I too have become involved in the notion of video resumes (or CV’s as they are more commonly known in the UK) through Its a Career Thing.
True, the interview is an opportunity for the candidate to present their skills and engage with the employer. But why not give them that opportunity sooner? With a video CV, it gives the candidate, a guaranteed way of coming ‘face to face’ with the employer.
Also, if you are looking to cut the cost of the process or make it more efficient, would you really want to interview people that were in no way right for the job?
to quote your answer Justin, ‘why not get the most you can from them, from the start’.
Interesting post. I think this is probably a result of fear of discrimination and the belief that details irrelevant to how a person will perform the job aren’t worth listing (both of which I agree with). That said, I do think good resumes tend to be both personal (in how they communicate) and professional. Where I really look for the candidates’s personality is in their cover letter which I look to to ‘fill in the gaps’ – learn a bit more about how they view themselves, why they are interested in the role, etc. I’ll have to hop over to your post on video profiling to read more about it.
Thanks for adding another layer to the job search Justin Hillier. I understand that the job hunting process is complex, and people need to go through it. From your perspective, Justin, recruiters have to find the right people to be a “fit” for a job based upon what a person “wants to do”, so your company develops a way to by pass it. So let’s add a video resume to the process and create more problems than we had before.
Discrimination is going to be an issue because you are going to charge $$ that a job seeker doesn’t have. That .25 resume compared to a $400 video is a discriminatory practice when you add in an equation of poverty.
Nice job Justin.
Introverted, interesting response. Can I ask firstly if you’re in the recruiment industry and secondly what research you did to come to your conclusions that, as you put it “my company are removing the personal aspect and charging candidates $400?
Maybe a read of my other articles and understanding what I am talking about first is wise, rather then making outlandish statements.
I appreciate debate and other views, but they must have some merit. We do not charge candidates and video and more personality and depth to a person then a piece of paper. Its about bringing the face to face contact to the equation faster, not removing or putting in obstacles that make it more difficult.
Introverted,
$400? A simple web cam in England costs around £6 – £10. Adding the video element into the process is proven to save efficiencies. Its the way forward.
D
Agreed Darren.