As 2009 comes to a close, I wonder how many job seekers have actually read this article. I doubt many, so I’m going to republish and put a link on my blog.

I encourage others to do the same as well.

Happy 2010!

Matthew, your article was quite funny … and … your flippant and dismissive attitude is also why candidates continually bad-mouth the recruiting industry. You talk about how resume writers are vultures preying on the unemployed; however, please remember we are on the side of the job seeker. I dare say, many in your industry ignore any candidate who can’t ensure they get a big fat corporate commission.

Now, on to more civil matters. For the record, very few of my clients are unemployed. I specialize in working with senior finance executives and almost all of them come to me in anticipation of making a move. They know they have value, but they are numbers guys, not marketers, and they need help gaining that clarity. Just like all recruiters are not the same, neither are all resume writers. While a client typically comes to me for a resume, what he really needs is an understanding of two things: 1) what does he have that a client is willing to pay to get, and 2) how does he get on the radar screen of his target market.

There’s an old story about a guy who took his car to the garage to be fixed. When he looked at the $300 bill, he saw it took a $1.25 part to fix it. When he asked about the reasonableness of such a high total invoice, the auto mechanic looked him in the eye and said … the value is in knowing which part and where to put it.

It’s the same for us … we bring an outside perspective of how to best market our clients and while they come to us for a resume, we also deliver a very valuable intangible … an understanding of how to clearly articulate their marketable value proposition.

I force my clients to get clear about their differentiation and the audience they want to serve. That ensures that they do not waste time playing the posted position game trying to be all things to all people, nor do they need multiple resumes. Rather, they know their niche and their target and they can execute a focused and effective search strategy.

I work closely with several finance recruiters because they recognize that when their candidates look great, they look great; and because I have the quality candidates they are seeking.

Your writing is witty, Matthew, and we will just have to agree to disagree on the value of quality career coaches / resume writers.

Cindy Kraft, the CFO-Coach

I agree with what you wrote here at Daybreak, Part 2 | galactica-science.com. Good points there….

In regards to Catbert, nobody here is claiming anyone to be an “Evil Director of Human Resources”, however I might ask how why this character was created in the first place. In addition, how did he become so popular? It sure wasn’t my doing.

Based upon what I can understand about Crosswind Ventures, it would appear that you’d agree with some of my points. I can tell you one of your own that I agree with, posted here on ERE, on the value of actual conversations with candidates:

“Truly great recruiters are outstanding in how they deal with real people, in live conversations, in real time.”

In recruiting terms, I believe that’s what known as being inconsistent.

But, it looked (for a moment) like Josh was going to try to contend with you on who put forth the funnier observations. Just as you represented the corporate recruiter perspective, he weighed in on behalf of the ever popular everyone-who-has-never-been-a-corporate-recruiter-but-thinks-they-know-how-to-do-the-job-better types with his witty comments like “Newsflash/Reality Check: This job is cake.” What a funny guy!

Josh was on a roll (he made a number of other hysterical comments) but lost the momentum with his assertion that “if I was in a leadership position internally, I would see value in utilizing ‘different’ titles than the same jobs at my competitors. Why? Because I would understand that many Recruiters would look right past them in their search for the *same* (or *extremely similar*) title. Simply shifting a title would reduce the probability that someone would be sourced or contacted by the competition.” Funny? Absolutely. But if it sounds familiar, it should.

It was done (in mass public circulation) several years ago by…Catbert and the Pointy-Haired Boss in Dilbert. In recruiting terms, I believe that’s what’s known as being priored.

At screening stage 1, the screener is culling through the resumes that happened to make it through the ATS (Applicant Tracking System) due to keyword filtering logic. In 10 seconds or less, they’re making a determination if the system had a hiccup or not. It’s more QA than anything else. In screening stage 1, the screener’s value is mitigation of opportunity cost in regards to the Hiring Manager. Even if they are paid the same amount (hourly, annually, etc.) as the Hiring Manager, there is opportunity cost involved. As you can tell, it’s not a perfect solution, and in my estimation, screening stage 1 (QA) is in significant decline as technology improves and systems ‘learn’ from themselves (I’m mainly speaking in regards to semantic technologies).

At screening stage 2, which is where you are currently situated, the screener is providing more value than at stage 1. The reason is because there is actual 2-way communication occurring. Keep in mind that it is at this stage that the screener is trying to qualify candidates based on criteria that may not be listed in the job description. For example, perhaps “Oil Industry Experience” was too broad and many good candidates (on paper, or at stage 1) did not have the specialized Oil sector experience that the Hiring Manager was really looking for. This goes to the validity and accuracy of the initial job description, which is a whole other bag of beans. Most job descriptions are created on the fly, with copy & paste taking a front seat so the Hiring Manager or Recruiter can “knock it out as soon as possible.”

It’s my humble opinion that GIGO is at play here – the necessity for multiple steps of screening, interviewing, etc., can often be reduced greatly through a proper job description. Kudos to Gerry Crispin for his ongoing efforts to create a standard along with SHRM – I would have liked to have been involved, but am already spread too thin and knew it would be an injustice to be involved with little to no time to spend contributing.

To get back on track, screening stage 2 is all about identifying what the recruiter/screener is looking for (meaning the competencies and skills not listed in the initial job description). If it’s a highly critical or pivotal role, Great recruiters will have an initial discover session with the Hiring Manager prior to publishing the job description . . . however I see this occurring less and less in our space. Again, GIGO, but I digress. The best thing you can do early in the initial phone screen (stage 2), is to specifically ask “what the organization is looking for in the ideal candidate.” If you don’t do this, John, the probability of you having a ’super’ phone screen is slim to none. Ask the question and don’t leave this to chance. In fact, once they answer, ask, “What else?” At this point, the recruiter/screener will realize you’re a player in the game . . . and most candidates tell me they can hear a shift in tone and substance as soon as that follow-on question is asked.

I wish you the best of luck, John. Interviewing is a game, or better, a dance of sorts. If you know the steps, you’re less likely to fumble and step on your own (or your partner’s) feet.

As an aside, to counter my questioning value, I will also tell you that I think the true value of consulting in my game – marketing – is $75/hour and that anyone asking for more will soon be in for a shock!

jh

I just had a screening interview and it brought this thread back to mind. The screener told me she had 6 people to talk to and that there would be a real interview for those that got through the screen later this week. Now I can believe that there are 5 other people as qualifies as I am for this job (technology startup, marketing, exploration industry, Canadian) – but can any of you professionals help me understand what value the screener brought to the process? As far as I can see, all that happened was a paid impediment to the company principals getting to talk to the real talent.

OK I am biased and bitter, but the thread makes me believe that resumes are a waste of time – if they are more than 20 words long – and that the fate of industry often rests in hands that are very poorly qualified to direct it!

j

(p.s. – on the subject of hours – any job I’ve ever excelled at required MINIMUM 60 hours per week, being paid for 37.5 of them…)

If you were a recruiter handling 30 openings in your in-box in some stage of closure(assume you fill 120 openings a year) and a flow of 300 resumes per opening is average 9conservative), how would you structure your initial scan of approximately 40,000 resumes a year into your daily full life cycle tasks? Remember to leave some sourcing time to woo various passive candidates with no resume to submit and application.

Assuming you can digitally search the stack, most build a set of hurdles so that the final candidates get serious time devoted to their profiles.

I’m surprised your data is so high. Whenever I “watch” someone work, it never takes that long.

43% of 2000 people surveyed said they spend one minute or less looking at a resume and 14% spend less than 30 seconds reviewing them.

For a document that so many people put so much time, effort, energy and money into, it sure does not create a big leverage point.

Thanks for posting.

If it wasn’t for the fact that employers want people with certain educational backgrounds, years of experience, locations, titles, salary histories, skills, experiences, awesome track records, personal qualities, a super high energy level and whatever other intangible quality that can be imagined, recruiting would be a total piece of cake. Just show up at the dock, point to someone and get a check. :)

In the old days of break-bulk cargo and longshoremen, to get hired for a day’s work you turned up outside the dock gates with everyone else. The gang bosses stood up on soap boxes and picked the people they wanted. Everyone else wandered off home or to the bar. Seems to me that the modern methods differ only in placing the gang boss out of direct reach!

jh

Your article makes an attempt at humor. I found it offensive and a reason why so many good recruiters don’t remain in the field very long.

What are the odds that we still end up with another 250? for the same title!!

• Age discrimination – I’ve worked for people over 55 and never heard or saw anything like you described, the ones I know are sharp and up-to-date on everything

• A black-listed ACCREDITED school – FYI, University of Phoenix is not just an online school. They have always offered on-campus classes. They are accredited, the coursework is solid (did I mention accredited) and it attended my motivated adults – unlike some of the party hard liberal arts types that you’re still bitter about. I know because I’ve attended on-campus business classes at both Party State U and UOPX. I dropped out of Party U in my sophomore year, got a decent job and have been earning a masters-level income without a degree. As a working adult learner I went back to finish my degree ON CAMPUS at the UOPX because they offered an ACCREDITED DEGREE program that fit my schedule – by the way, I had tuition reimbursement too. The dig you made at UOPX really got me fired up because of how wrong you are. I could go on, but I’ll stop here

• Black-listed companies – you’re passing on a candidate even though that person likely had nothing to do with the reason for the scandal or acquisition and likely is a talented professional

If this really is indicative of your profession’s approach, it’s time to re-evaluate! Get a real world education on the traits and characteristics that enable people to be successful and then match the right traits, education, and experience to the traits and knowledge needed to be successful in the position you’re client is looking to fill.

The type of profiling described here is preventing your clients from getting top talent and giving your profession a well deserved black-eye in the minds of the candidates who never get any feedback – even though they know they’re perfect for the position they’ve taken the effort to apply for. I bet you’ve discovered this in your search now that you’re “one of them.”

Good luck with your search.