The Biggest Mistake In Hiring: Why Resumes Don’t Work
In Part I of this “Why is Hiring Broken?” series, I examined the myth of “hiring as an art,” in Part II, I discussed the myth of expert prediction, in Part III, I outlined the myth of work experience, and in this Part IV, I detail the limitations of the resume.
Imagine the typical job application process: You find a job listing that looks promising, you customize your resume (and usually a cover letter) for the role, hit “apply,” and pray to the hiring gods for the best.
Even when you find a job opening through someone you know, the first thing the person usually says is, “Send me your resume.”
When hiring has a 46% failure rate (approximately the same as flipping a coin), it’s hard to justify why the resume is so central to the hiring process.
Why resumes are bad at predicting job performance
Too many job applications
When a job listing receives 250 applications on average, most of the resumes received are inevitably going to be ignored. According to one survey, “only 19% of hiring managers at small companies looked at a majority of the resumes they receive, and 47% say they review just a few.” If the best candidate ends up in that ignored pile, no one will ever know.
Not enough attention paid
Research has revealed that a recruiter spends, on average, 6 seconds scanning a resume. Within that limited time span, how can someone accurately assess a job candidate’s skills and knowledge, personality traits, and culture fit? They can’t.
Attention paid to the wrong information
The same study found that within those 6 seconds that a recruiter looked at a resume, 80% of the time was spend on the job candidate’s name, current title/company, and previous title/company. Even ignoring the research on the hiring biases associated with job candidates’ names, we already know that work experience is an unreliable predictor of job performance.
Inaccurate or misleading information
A survey of hiring managers found that 49% of job candidates lied on their resumes. Arguably, it’s not entirely the candidate’s fault: The countless articles on how to “game” the applicant tracking system sets up the mindset that you need to trick someone in order to get a job.
If resumes are so bad why does everyone use them?
Everyone else uses them and because they don’t know what to use instead. But in this day and age of social recruitment and technological improvements, relying on an outdated medium that doesn’t adequately capture what a person is capable of and how he or she will fit into your company just doesn’t make sense.
What we should be using to hire instead
What we need is a hiring system that can quickly and accurately collect data on a job candidate’s work-related characteristics, objectively assess the data of every job candidate that applies to a role, and use that data to make a prediction on how well that job candidate will perform in a particular role.
Read my post on why I believe candidate-job matching based on psychometric assessment is the future of hiring.
This is Part IV of a 5-part series on “Why is Hiring Broken?” In Part V, I explain why the typical interview fails so spectacularly.
Got a question? Or have a hiring story to share? Let me know in the comments or tweet @ideal.
Latest posts by Ji-A Min (see all)
- The Recruiting Software Stack: A Buyer’s Guide To The Top 4 Innovations - December 2, 2016
- AI Recruitment: The Future of Automated Recruiting - November 22, 2016
- Google Cloud Jobs API: 4 Things You Need to Know - November 17, 2016