Looking Beyond a Resume

Are we developing a bias towards fancy resumes?

I asked this question of myself after posting 7 jobs and receiving 10,000 applications, but was still having trouble convincing hiring managers that there were talented people in the candidate pool. As a Human Resources professional who has recruited for many years, I would start by sorting candidates by required education then by the desirable qualities the manager has decided that a candidate should possess. After opening a few resumes, I would then send the best ones that showed the skill the manager needed and then proceeded to give these “top candidates” a call. Out of the 10 people I would call, 8 of them made me wonder if I’ve called the wrong number. The candidate I had just spoken to did not seem to match the expertise on the highly polished resume I held in my hand. These potential candidates looked great on paper, but I learned that the level of resume sophistication does not always transfer to candidate skill. Yet, the hiring manager generally wanted to interview them anyway. Most candidates who did not have a strong resume were generally not extended an interview.

Through experience, I have learned that someone with a lackluster resume could turn out to be a great hire and this tends to be the most frustrating part of recruiting. I have gone to recruitment fairs and interviewed fantastic candidates, only to later review their awfully put together resumes and think to myself “This resume will never get past the hiring manager”. But, why should I pass up a great candidate, just because of a poorly constructed resume? I needed to be able to convince hiring managers they are passing up quality candidates.

If you are good at marketing yourself, does that mean you are good at your job?

There are thousands of articles online telling job seekers how to “market themselves”. I think, because of this trend that recruiters expect candidates to compile a resume to impress us. The reality though is, not everyone is good at it and not everyone who markets themselves shows a true picture of ability. Using an analogy, a resume is basically a tool, like a product brochure, that is sent to potential buyers to purchase their service or product. A product brochure generally has a catchy cover, concise descriptions and most likely high definition photographs (don’t put photographs on a resume though, most companies will reject it for just that reason). It should make you want to know more about the product or service. A well written resume serves the same purpose and prompts employers to make a decision to interview based on this fancily formatted, well written description of abilities. In fact, as employers, we may EXPECT a resume to have those highly polished qualities and many times reject any that do not. But, how many times did you see that beautiful glossy Bahamas brochure and upon arrival, found a shack and where are the beautiful views from the pictures?

Great candidates can lack the skill to sell themselves on paper and when this happens, companies pass over good talent (using the brochure analogy) just because the product brochure is a black and white, tri-fold piece of copy paper with no pizzazz. It doesn't mean that the black and white brochure does not hold promise, it is just that many of us want to be impressed! We are so used to sophisticated media that we may be starting to develop a bias when it comes to reviewing resumes. 

I have read many articles about our “talent shortage” and it made me wonder that rather than talent shortage, are we, as recruiters, just not very good at looking past resumes to identify talent? An applicant tracking system is great. It helps make short work of screening candidates who have the right background to do the job. I decided it was time for a new approach in screening candidates other than reviewing a one page resume that may or may not have been created by the candidate (hello family members and resume writing firms!) and may or may not even show a true reflection of ability.

Design screening tools that are tailored to filling your jobs

After a particularly disappointing round of requisition postings and not being able to find the “talent” I needed, I decided to work with a group of subject matter experts at my company. I asked them: “What are the basic skills for this particular mechanical job?” This came about because I needed almost 40 specialized mechanical positions filled due to an expansion and was having a difficult time sourcing candidates. After a consensus, we came up with 3 tasks that were critical to the job and 9 questions that we turned into a “screening” tool for face to face recruitment fairs. 

The day of the first recruitment fair, I had candidates fill out the sheet to see what would happen. Surprisingly, out of a little over 150 candidates who were interested in the mechanical position, only 24 candidates got 7 or more questions correct. When I took up the Prescreen, I also stapled a copy of everyone’s resume to the questions. When I got back to the office, I was really surprised at how many people passed the Prescreen questions, but did not have great resumes. I also found it interesting that in the four recruitment fairs we conducted, a handful of people whose resumes I had previously reviewed on other requisitions and screened them out based on not seeing the skills required, scored high on the Prescreen tool. Further, these candidates went on to be successful in our hiring process. This experience has made me rethink how to screen potential candidates.

Define your success rate, track data and make sure it’s legal

In the data that we tracked, we found that candidates scoring a 7 or above on the 9 questions (About 78%) had a higher rate of success in our mechanical candidate process. The Prescreen tool we used was not a pre-hire assessment and we did not use it solely to make hiring decisions. Rather, it is more or less a tool to quickly screen several candidates at job fairs and rank candidates for interview and mechanical testing based on demonstrated skill rather than ranking by resume alone. We found a way to look beyond the resume.

Of course, with any kind of tool you create, you need to make sure that it is relevant to the job at hand and conforms to federal, state and local laws. It also needs to be a statistically valid predictor of success.

We still processed all of the candidates, even the ones who did not do well on the Prescreen. Candidates who scored high on the Prescreen had a higher success rate on the mechanical bench test and usually went the mechanical route. Candidates making a 6 out of 9 (About 67%) or below were not successful in our mechanical candidate process, but were successful in one of our non-mechanical postings. Generally anyone making a 4 or below was not successful in any part of the process. This tool helped us process the mechanically inclined candidates first since that was our greatest hiring demand and also helped forcing hiring managers to take a look at a candidate based on data who may had been overlooked due to a poorly written resume.

Upon researching how to screen candidates beyond a resume, I found that looking beyond a resume is a concept that many companies are recently turning to. In a fantastic TED Talk, Regina Hartley from says "Everyone has heard the old saying “Hire For Attitude – Train For Skill” but Hirebar says that "very few people put it into practice. Hiring Managers and Recruiters alike are often mesmerized by flashy candidates with a great smile and a great resume. Regina Harley calls these job candidates “Silver Spoon” applicants." Regina says to give the one with the non traditional resume a chance. (Full article posted on Hirebar).

I would be interested to know, what do you do above reviewing resumes to make sure you are not screening out qualified talent? Leave your comments below.

Andrea Warren, M.S., PHR