OK, so the title of this blog is a thinly veiled attempt to get your attention but let's take a look at the subject of reading resumes from a recruiter's perspective. Following is a list of some commonly held beliefs and my take on each of them:

1)     Reject resumes where there are significant gaps in the job history—this really is a pretty silly thing to do. There are lots of valid reasons for gaps in job history. Sometimes candidates explore a change in career direction before returning to their original career. Often they'll leave the diversion off their resume. Sometimes candidates leave off short missteps such as jobs that didn't work out. Sometimes candidates make mistakes on their resume. Whatever the reason, if what is shown on the resume seems relevant to the search, doesn't it make sense to contact the candidate and listen closely to the explanation for the gaps?

2)     Reject resumes with spelling mistakes or resumes that are unclear—I find myself wanting to do this all the time when reviewing resumes. Sure, a well formatted, clearly written resume gets my attention but the opposite is not a good reason to reject a resume unless spelling and layout are requirements for the job. With respect to all the IT folks I've placed over the years, as a group IT folks have some of the poorest resumes.

3)     Reject resumes without a cover letter—odd as it may seem, many people hold on to the belief that if a candidate doesn't take the time to write a cover letter that the resume should be rejected. Oh well, more candidates for me!

4)     Reject functional resumes—many folks interpret a functional resume as a desire to hide bad stuff. They prefer chronological resumes. Believe me, both kinds of resumes can contain just as many untruths.

5)     Reject resumes with no dates on the education—the thinking is that if someone leaves their graduation date off their resume that they must be old, whatever old is. I've noticed that the older I get, that my concept of old keeps changing.

6)     Reject resumes with no dates for each job—this one is close to being a good idea. I'm not sure I've ever seen a resume with no dates that corresponds to a solid job history. However, if the experience is relevant, why not call the candidate and investigate?

7)     Reject resumes based on the candidates address—assuming that you're searching for a local candidate, who determines what commute is too long? That's a totally personal choice. Far better to let the candidate decide. Perhaps they are a renter who will relocate themselves to be close to their new job?

8)     Reject resumes due to inane objectives—less experienced candidates will often write some idealistic objective that has nothing to do with being successful in the workplace. Just ignore it and look for relevant experience on the resume.

9)     Reject resumes because the recruiter is bored, tired, disinterested, rushed, or overwhelmed—we've all been there but it's much better to stop looking at resumes and do something else for a while than potentially reject qualified candidates.

10)   Reject resumes because you just know that the hiring manager wouldn't be interested—this is a tough one. Clearly there isn't much point sending a resume to a hiring manager if you know that they will just reject it. However, check your assumptions. If you've really got a good candidate, perhaps you could present them in a different way?

If you've read this far, you've probably realized that we all have positive and negative biases which come into play when we review resumes. Perhaps you've been rejecting good candidates for no good reason?

Please let me know your thoughts.