Stop Reading Resumes
Beth Smith reveals that reading resumes is actually creating a bias in your hiring process. Tune into to discover a better way of screening candidates.
Grammar, Boys and Resumes
My daughter, Katy, received a text from a potential suitor that said “Your so pretty!” She showed me the text with a horrified look on her face and said “I’m sorry. If he doesn’t know the difference between your/you’re and to/two/too, then I am not interested!”
In my business, we receive hundreds of resumes for jobs per week and at least half of them have some sort of grammar and/or spelling error. Sometimes we interview them anyway because they have the experience that we are looking for, they wrote a “nice” cover letter or we decide to forgive that “one tiny mistake.” But here is the hard and fast truth: The easiest way to determine if the candidate is serious about the position is whether or not they took the extra 2 minutes to run spell check and proof their work. It really isn’t hard. It really doesn’t take much time. It really does make a difference.
So for those candidates that are continuously asking me for interviewing help, my best advice to get the interview is to please do a review of your materials before you send them. Better yet, have your neighbor, friend, significant other read your resume and cover letter, just for that extra set of eyes. And for my clients who ask, Yes! Grammar counts! Just ask my beloved teenage daughter!
P.S. May all boys within dating age of my daughter make grammatical errors like these. Amen.
People on Paper Are Not People in Person
The single most beautiful resume I have ever seen was written by a woman who stood up at the end of the interview and screamed at my 7 person interview team while banging her fist on the table “I AM NOT FINISHED TELLING YOU ABOUT MYSELF!!!” We had her escorted off the property by security.
The system of screening candidates is backwards…we spend time within the application process by meticulously reviewing resumes when we are really better off spending our time in the interviewing process. Why don’t we? Our culture has told us we can effectively screen people by reading resumes. You cannot. A resume is simply a marketing piece for the candidate. If a sales person brought you a brochure, you would read the fine print. You would ask yourself “What is the catch?” If interested, you would call the salesperson and ask questions, but you wouldn’t take the marketing piece at face value. So why do we in screening resumes?
People on paper aren’t the same as people in person. Randy Smith, A-list Interviews Resume Reviewer Extraordinaire and head to our XLR8 Application Services, says that the better someone looks on paper, the worse they are in person. And you know what? He’s right.
If you have ever worked with me in finding your next A-list employee, you went in blind to an interview without looking at resumes of the candidates you are interviewing. My clients have said that not looking at resumes before an interview actually let them focus on the person in front of them. They listen to the candidate, and the candidate gets a more genuine experience with the company.
My best advice is to spend your time interviewing, not reviewing resumes in order to find your next best employee. You will be amazed at the difference it makes in finding the ideal person for the job.
Rebuttal – How to Spot a Resume of a Psychopath
I am sometimes astounded by the amount of misinformation available about how to conduct a good interview and spot an ideal candidate. As I was reading an article by Kathryn Tuggle on “How to Spot a resume of a Psychopath Applying to Work with You”, I was stunned by the outdated ideas were presented as benchmarks when determining your next employee. Many of her ideas could actually cause you to miss out on a great candidate with the first problem beginning with the title of the article.
First of all, NO ONE can spot a psychopath be reading their resume. As a matter of fact, you can’t find a great candidate at all by reading their resume. People on paper are not the same as they are in person. A complete measure of an individual candidate can only occur when you meet face to face.
Second of all, the article continues to pose that a candidate that you are hiring with work “with” you; you are hiring a person to work “for” you. There is an enormous difference in looking for a partner to work “with” and an employee who will work “for” you.
Then, there is the myth of job hopping. The idea that job hopping is a negative is one that we should stop measuring our candidates by. The concept should have gone out with the 50’s notion that we should work for one company until you retire. We have discovered having the same position for decades that lingers on and on (like a bad hangover) actually reduces our productivity. Research shows that people who job hop every 2-3 years are actually more successful. Ms. Tuggle quoted a psychologist who says that psychopaths will job hop. Well so do people in their 20’s who haven’t settled down yet. As well as those that realize opportunities may exist more quickly with other companies than a current position may hold. It doesn’t mean that they are a bad hire. In addition, I greatly appreciate a person who leaves a job because they know it isn’t a good fit versus one who will stay just to be able to put 2 years on a resume. Neither of these situations is a win-win for the employee and the employer. Also, Dr. Greenberg makes the assumption that someone who leaves before a year “can’t hold down a job.” What if they had to move home to take care of an aging parent? What if their military spouse got transferred to another state? You NEVER know why someone left a job and to assume that they left because they are a psychopath is dangerous and judgmental.
Dr. Greenberg continues to express a concern and assumption that clear sign of a psychopath is that they are unable to be quiet in an interview. Being a talker doesn’t mean your candidate is a psychopath. In a well run interview, the candidate should be talking most of the time and about themselves. They should be letting you know how they can help you, which is not the same as them “blowing their horn for an hour” as referred to in the article.
One point that was brought up that I may agree with a bit is when you hear a candidate blaming their boss for not getting promoted. This could be a clear sign that the candidate isn’t taking ownership for their part in the last position not working out. But again, that doesn’t make the candidate a psychopath. It could just mean that the candidate hasn’t worked out their issues with the last position. An experienced interviewer will be able to glean enough information from that person to decide if the issues are big enough to warrant not making a job offer.
The last point that Dr. Greenberg makes is that a candidate who compliments you on your office décor is a manipulator. Not necessarily true. They may be trying to break the ice. The discomfort of the interview process, especially for the candidate, is like no other we experience. If the compliment feels insincere or “slimy” certainly pay attention. However not all people who compliment the interviewer are manipulators.
Articles like these are dangerous. They make broad, sweeping arguments that a particular behavior is bad and that the person exhibiting the behavior is bad. I have successful exceptions to every one of these so called “psychopathic behaviors”. Dr. Greenberg needs to stick to therapy and stay out of interviewing or our work force will be completed misplaced.