4 ms·

New Technique for Getting Your Resume Noticed

17 points by webwright 16y ago

jasonlgrimes 16y ago
Maybe LinkedIn/Facebook is making this more socially acceptable. I sure would like to picture a potential employee before phone screening/in depth interviews.
- supahfly_remix 16y ago
  Are you in a technical area? Why would someone's appearance matter? I can understand if you're hiring for Hooter's (or sales, not too different). The appearance of judging based on pictures can also open your company up to EEO lawsuits.
  - scottporad 16y ago
    Appearance doesn't matter, and in the post, I don't think I ever said it did. (In fact, what I said was, "it wasn’t his pretty face that was the deciding factor; he was a very qualified candidate who would have passed our screening regardless".) I know nothing about this guy's skills other than what his resume says. But, what I do know is that he's a person, compared to every one of these other resumes that are an abstraction.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      And you also know that he's an early-middle-aged white male, which likely influenced you to some degree, however minor, in whatever direction. You've even labeled him a "guy". Why "guy"? Why not some other term? A sense of familiarity? Hence the EEOC issues.
      - abeppu 16y ago
        Yeah, but most of the time, the name is going to give you strong clues about gender and ethnicity anyways. And education and job history probably give you good ideas about the applicant's age. People already have plenty of opportunity to discriminate even without the photo.
        Groxx 16y ago
        Very true. I've long thought that I'd love to make / have a hiring-tool which just hashes names and hides them (as there's still rare uses) and all racial data to hide this sort of bias. I wonder what it'd do to hiring stats.
daveschappell 16y ago
I've tripled posted this already, but I don't like faces on resumes -- it can be practical (if it shows the person in a manner that resonates with your company culture), but the odds of that happening seem pretty remote, since it can't be a good photo for all involved. I think I'm starting to show my stodginess because I like resumes looking like they've always looked.
edw519 16y ago
This may work well once your resume makes it to the hiring manager, but chances are that it won't get that far. Most corporate HR departments will eliminate resumes with pictures to avoid any potential EEOC issues.
- ddelony 16y ago
  I was thinking that if any company required photos with resumes, that they would get into trouble if they kept picking white males. It would be interesting if people could submit resumes anonymously, without a picture or name.
  - scottporad 16y ago
    The anonymous submission thing is interesting to me, despite the fact that I liked the photo idea. I would genuinely be interested in participating in an experiment to compare all resumes with pictures versus all resumes that are anonymous. I would like to be the subject...to review the resumes and see if I'm biased or not. I think that would be interesting.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- rada 16y ago
  Second that. A couple years ago, I've had a conversation about video resumes with the owner of a company that centers around job search for recent college grads. He actually floated the idea to his lawyer and the laywer nixed it for reasons you've mentioned. There is a workaround however. You can include a link to LinkedIn at the top of your resume, and upload a photo to your LinkedIn profile. That's what I do.
- mcknz 16y ago
  Would probably make most sense if you were applying to a small organization where a senior person was doing the review. Otherwise it becomes 1) I don't like how this person looks or 2) this person is just using a picture to compensate for some other shortcoming in the resume...
- 16y ago
mkramlich 16y ago
Showing photo and age will make it stick out but precisely because you're telling them age and (usually also) race and gender you're going to trigger problems due to hiring and civil rights laws, esp if a large corp or HR is involved. Stick out? Yes. Bad way? Probably sometimes.
commieneko 16y ago
It's a big ol' world, and I'm sure you can find an example of _anything_ working at least once, but this is not a good idea. This isn't because its right, wrong, or indifferent, it isn't because how you look should or shouldn't make a difference. It's because this is the way the world works. The conceit is that someone is being considered based upon what they've done, not on the way they look. I've known HR departments to block out faces with markers on resumes under review. When I'm confronted with a resume with a face, at least for the first cut, I have to worry whether I'm selecting for the face or the accomplishments. Later, when I actually meet the person, _thats_ when that all important first impression happens. First impressions should be based on the way someone _acts_ not on the way they _look_. (And personally, if I'm impressed with their stats, even if they make a poor or mediocre first impression, I try to go back and give them another chance; a potential good employee is worth the extra effort.) The only type of job for which this would be a good idea is for a job as an actor/actress/performer. In their industry including a photo is routine.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
phreanix 16y ago
It's also a great way to start discriminating based on looks/gender/physical appearance (fitness, for example)
danshapiro 16y ago
There's probably a good way to do this. The one time someone gave me a resume with a face on it, it came across as creepy and desperate, and I ditched it immediately.
nlawalker 16y ago
From the article: "literally anybody and everybody could do this and improve their resume in a matter of minutes." ...and then it would no longer be a technique to make your resume stand out.
scottporad 16y ago
Based on feedback, I followed this up with another post: http://www.scottporad.com/2010/06/24/getting-your-resume-noticed-vs-hiring-the-best-candidate/ http://www.scottporad.com/2010/06/24/getting-your-resume-not...

17 points by webwright 16y ago

Maybe LinkedIn/Facebook is making this more socially acceptable. I sure would like to picture a potential employee before phone screening/in depth interviews.

supahfly_remix 16y ago
Are you in a technical area? Why would someone's appearance matter? I can understand if you're hiring for Hooter's (or sales, not too different). The appearance of judging based on pictures can also open your company up to EEO lawsuits.
- scottporad 16y ago
  Appearance doesn't matter, and in the post, I don't think I ever said it did. (In fact, what I said was, "it wasn’t his pretty face that was the deciding factor; he was a very qualified candidate who would have passed our screening regardless".) I know nothing about this guy's skills other than what his resume says. But, what I do know is that he's a person, compared to every one of these other resumes that are an abstraction.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    And you also know that he's an early-middle-aged white male, which likely influenced you to some degree, however minor, in whatever direction. You've even labeled him a "guy". Why "guy"? Why not some other term? A sense of familiarity? Hence the EEOC issues.
    - abeppu 16y ago
      Yeah, but most of the time, the name is going to give you strong clues about gender and ethnicity anyways. And education and job history probably give you good ideas about the applicant's age. People already have plenty of opportunity to discriminate even without the photo.
      - Groxx 16y ago
        Very true. I've long thought that I'd love to make / have a hiring-tool which just hashes names and hides them (as there's still rare uses) and all racial data to hide this sort of bias. I wonder what it'd do to hiring stats.

daveschappell 16y ago

I've tripled posted this already, but I don't like faces on resumes -- it can be practical (if it shows the person in a manner that resonates with your company culture), but the odds of that happening seem pretty remote, since it can't be a good photo for all involved. I think I'm starting to show my stodginess because I like resumes looking like they've always looked.

edw519 16y ago

This may work well once your resume makes it to the hiring manager, but chances are that it won't get that far. Most corporate HR departments will eliminate resumes with pictures to avoid any potential EEOC issues.

ddelony 16y ago
I was thinking that if any company required photos with resumes, that they would get into trouble if they kept picking white males. It would be interesting if people could submit resumes anonymously, without a picture or name.
- scottporad 16y ago
  The anonymous submission thing is interesting to me, despite the fact that I liked the photo idea. I would genuinely be interested in participating in an experiment to compare all resumes with pictures versus all resumes that are anonymous. I would like to be the subject...to review the resumes and see if I'm biased or not. I think that would be interesting.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rada 16y ago
Second that. A couple years ago, I've had a conversation about video resumes with the owner of a company that centers around job search for recent college grads. He actually floated the idea to his lawyer and the laywer nixed it for reasons you've mentioned. There is a workaround however. You can include a link to LinkedIn at the top of your resume, and upload a photo to your LinkedIn profile. That's what I do.
mcknz 16y ago
Would probably make most sense if you were applying to a small organization where a senior person was doing the review. Otherwise it becomes 1) I don't like how this person looks or 2) this person is just using a picture to compensate for some other shortcoming in the resume...
16y ago

mkramlich 16y ago

Showing photo and age will make it stick out but precisely because you're telling them age and (usually also) race and gender you're going to trigger problems due to hiring and civil rights laws, esp if a large corp or HR is involved. Stick out? Yes. Bad way? Probably sometimes.

commieneko 16y ago

It's a big ol' world, and I'm sure you can find an example of _anything_ working at least once, but this is not a good idea. This isn't because its right, wrong, or indifferent, it isn't because how you look should or shouldn't make a difference. It's because this is the way the world works. The conceit is that someone is being considered based upon what they've done, not on the way they look. I've known HR departments to block out faces with markers on resumes under review. When I'm confronted with a resume with a face, at least for the first cut, I have to worry whether I'm selecting for the face or the accomplishments. Later, when I actually meet the person, _thats_ when that all important first impression happens. First impressions should be based on the way someone _acts_ not on the way they _look_. (And personally, if I'm impressed with their stats, even if they make a poor or mediocre first impression, I try to go back and give them another chance; a potential good employee is worth the extra effort.) The only type of job for which this would be a good idea is for a job as an actor/actress/performer. In their industry including a photo is routine.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

phreanix 16y ago

It's also a great way to start discriminating based on looks/gender/physical appearance (fitness, for example)

danshapiro 16y ago

There's probably a good way to do this. The one time someone gave me a resume with a face on it, it came across as creepy and desperate, and I ditched it immediately.

nlawalker 16y ago

From the article: "literally anybody and everybody could do this and improve their resume in a matter of minutes." ...and then it would no longer be a technique to make your resume stand out.

scottporad 16y ago

Based on feedback, I followed this up with another post: http://www.scottporad.com/2010/06/24/getting-your-resume-noticed-vs-hiring-the-best-candidate/ http://www.scottporad.com/2010/06/24/getting-your-resume-not...