General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2189081

    DOWNLOAD: 5 tactics to help ensure that the best resumes land on your desk


    by jodygilbert ·

    After you take a look at this download, please post your feedback, ideas for improvements, or further thoughts on this topic.

    –The TechRepublic Downloads Team

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3046461

      not bad

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to DOWNLOAD: 5 tactics to help ensure that the best resumes land on your desk

      It’s a step in the right direction.

      Frankly, I’m of the opinion that HR shouldn’t be empowered to do much of anything other than disqualify candidates who have specific deal-breaking problems and gather additional information in initial contact with candidates. HR is often the biggest stumbling block toward an organization getting the talent it needs.

      • #3043462

        Don’t blame HR

        by caughtlbw ·

        In reply to not bad

        In the context of hiring, HR wear two hats.

        On the one hand, they act as an internal service provider to whomever in the company needs to hire. They are responsible for advertising for, filtering, and validating applicants.

        On the other hand, they act to ensure that the company fully complies with all relevant employment law, such as sex, age, and disability discrimination.

        This compliance task is hard (and getting harder) but enormously important. Do you really want a six-figure fine, and an embarrasment of publicity, because a wheelchair using applicant couldn’t even get to the interview room?

        So let’s be wary of dissing HR!

        In respect of the first task, clearly HR can only provide a service that’s as good as the information provided to them. And as I see it, that’s all this download is really emphasising. It’s just saying that the more detail you give to HR about what you want, the better the service they’ll be able to provide.

        In my experience, the biggest stumbling block on the path to recruiting talent is not HR, but the people who write the job specs.

        In particular, the way in which a job spec is divided into REQUIRED and DESIRABLE qualifications, experience, etc. This issue is referred to in the download.

        For example, I recently saw a job spec for a Technical Support Manager. It required that any applicant have at least 3 years experience as a Tech Support Manager of a department of at least 6 people. In other words, the IT Director (who wrote the job spec) considered that only applicants with this background would be capable of doing the job.

        To my mind, this is a nonsense.

        There are a great many people, from a wide diversity of backgrounds, who will be capable of doing this job. By artificially restricting the job specification in this way, you prevent these people from applying. In consequence, you will never be able to benefit from the new ideas, different perspectives, and synergisms of these people.

        If, on the other hand, you list “3 years experience as a Tech Manager” as DESIRABLE, then you’re saying that an applicant with that experience will have a head-start over other applicants, and that other applicants will have to be particularly impressive in other areas in order to compensate for their lack of experience. But you still leave open their ability to apply, and that you’ll consider applicants on the basis of their ability to actually do the job.

        • #3046354

          and yet

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Don’t blame HR

          It would never occur to most HR people, who should know the value (or lack of value) of a job spec that is clearly rubbish, to question the specs they’re given. HR is a bureaucratic function by definition, which is a net loss to efficiency and functionality of an organization almost 100% of the time. It promotes the sort of thinking that sees people taking job specs as written and not bothering to determine whether they make any damned sense.

          If and when HR starts taking an active (and productive, positively contributing) hand in helping to develop job specs in most organizations, then maybe I’ll stop “dissing” HR. Until that time, I’ll go right on thinking that 98% of HR is crap.

    • #3043422

      Lowest common denominator

      by blamerer ·

      In reply to DOWNLOAD: 5 tactics to help ensure that the best resumes land on your desk

      The problem with using an HR dept is that they concentrate mostly on paper degrees. We in the tech field know that a paper degree is like having a degree in flying a plane (the same as nothing). I had literally 8 thousands of hours of experience in several operating systems and network infrastructure management. It took me 6 full months to find a job. And then it was sheer coincidence that I happened to apply to a temp agency. Happened to work in a school for a day. And by the end of that day the management of that school was screaming for my resume. Bottom line is that if an HR department had been involved, I would still be out of a job. To make a long story longer, if you are using people who have no clue about technology to evaluate people you will overlook several people who are experts in work and not in creating paper work. As far as I am concerned HR should be used to screen out drug addicts, and felons and that should be about the extent of their involvment.

      • #3046350


        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Lowest common denominator

        One of the problems with HR departments is that the people in them have been taught about their jobs with blinders on. They need to open their eyes a bit and actually talk to applicants, people who’ve been hired, and hiring managers about not just job specifications and qualifications, but they they all see as being wrong with the HR process. Until you solicit and take to heart all the complaints relating to a job like HR, you can’t do it well.

        Unfortunately, HR departments aren’t really concerned with doing their jobs well. They’re only concerned with doing them “right”, according to a formula they’ve been fed, without any critical thinking involved. Hiring is not a matter of fitting Legos together: it’s very much an art. You can’t judge a candidate by bullet points and having desirable answers to canned questions and expect to get a clear and accurate view of whether that candidate would be a good fit for the organization.

        Hiring needs to be a dialog, not a quiz.

    • #3046345

      I use

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to DOWNLOAD: 5 tactics to help ensure that the best resumes land on your desk

      one simple process for tech jobs.
      all applicants, before interviews are required to pass tests.
      the tests consist of some problems that are specific for the type of position applied for.
      programmers have to solve programming problems.
      web designers have to solve web scripting problems.
      techs have to troubleshoot tech issues.

      secretarial have to be able to find, open and use a text processing tool.

      if they can’t prove the skills, then they aren’t qualified, so why should they get interviewed.

      they prove the skills, then interview them to see how well they will fit.
      hr is good for the testing.
      hr is good for processing the paperwork when hired.
      other than that I have no use for hr.

      I don’t care if someone is handicapped, or from a minority.
      if they can prove the skills, then they have the same chance of getting hired as the next person.
      if they can’t prove the skills, then there’s the door, don’t let it hit you on the way out.

    • #2625230


      by noor_a_kadir ·

      In reply to DOWNLOAD: 5 tactics to help ensure that the best resumes land on your desk

      so the culprit is the HR.
      I am keeping the HR on their toes now. The results so far seems promising.


Viewing 3 reply threads