3 ms·

You pass on the resumes you don't find interesting, and yes, that's probably most of them. At that point in the process, it is the resume writer's job to make

You pass on the resumes you don't find interesting, and yes, that's probably most of them. At that point in the process, it is the resume writer's job to make their resume interesting, not the reader's job to figure out what about this blandness might be a hidden gem. And if that leaves nobody, you keep looking. One company I was at that was pretty good at hiring would much rather leave positions open than hire "the best of the current lot". Other companies were the other way around, and ended up with much lower quality. And certainly if "N years of X experience" is all there is it won't be particularly interesting. Pass. If you have improved faster, there should be work that you've done that you can reference, know-how you've amassed that you can assert you have (and I can somehow check). And if you've done the work of someone with 10 years experience, but you've only been at it for 2, yes, that will be noticeable. Very much so. So make your resume interesting. Without going beyond what is there. One candidate had as his headline that he was a "Software Architect". Cool! First, very obvious question: "So what's Software Architecture". Stammer...stammer...and then after a while some random buzzwords about "best practices". Now obviously there can be various different answers, and while I have my preferred and that one is obviously correct (Hah!), you should at least have something reasonable to say there if you make that the headline of your resume.

bananaface 6y ago
Ok, but every other company is also thinking this. If you only interview candidates who are exceptionally good at advertising themselves, you're selecting for applicants that are harder to hire relative to their actual abilities. The valuable talent is better than they seem on their resume. Do you not worry about identifying that? Like, the "it will be obvious" thing... I'm just not convinced. Sure, if you speak to someone you can tell pretty quickly, but on a resume? What concrete evidence would you expect to see from someone who's only been in work for 2 years? I can think of a lot, but not much that you could convey in that format.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  > The valuable talent is better than they seem on their resume. Don't really think so. Don't confuse "plain" with "uninteresting". I remember coming across my dad's resume at some point. It was plain as heck, but included such choice sentences as "Experience leading a national car manufacturer" (paraphrased). Ahh. Tell. Me. More. > Do you not worry about identifying that? Not particularly, no. First, I don't really believe that this is true, second, I worry a lot more about false negatives than I do about false positives. Third, it's really not that hard. > Sure, if you speak to someone you can tell pretty quickly, but on a resume? That's why you have the combination: the resume tells me if the person is interesting, the interview tells me if that was actually true. > I can think of a lot, but not much that you could convey in that format. Why not? Unless you're mixing up the two (again). I also see that I couldn't convince someone that I am interesting on the resume (in a "beyond doubt" fashion). But that's not the resume. That's the interview. The interview is about triggering interest. I think you're making this harder than it is. Heck, just write: "After only two years on the job I was doing the work of people with 10 years seniority". There, done. Interesting? Definitely. True? Well, it better be, and I am going to see if that is true to my satisfaction. After all, it could be that the people there just sucked.
  - bananaface 6y ago
    This is actually quite informative & helpful. Thank you.

bananaface 6y ago

Ok, but every other company is also thinking this. If you only interview candidates who are exceptionally good at advertising themselves, you're selecting for applicants that are harder to hire relative to their actual abilities. The valuable talent is better than they seem on their resume. Do you not worry about identifying that? Like, the "it will be obvious" thing... I'm just not convinced. Sure, if you speak to someone you can tell pretty quickly, but on a resume? What concrete evidence would you expect to see from someone who's only been in work for 2 years? I can think of a lot, but not much that you could convey in that format.

mpweiher 6y ago
> The valuable talent is better than they seem on their resume. Don't really think so. Don't confuse "plain" with "uninteresting". I remember coming across my dad's resume at some point. It was plain as heck, but included such choice sentences as "Experience leading a national car manufacturer" (paraphrased). Ahh. Tell. Me. More. > Do you not worry about identifying that? Not particularly, no. First, I don't really believe that this is true, second, I worry a lot more about false negatives than I do about false positives. Third, it's really not that hard. > Sure, if you speak to someone you can tell pretty quickly, but on a resume? That's why you have the combination: the resume tells me if the person is interesting, the interview tells me if that was actually true. > I can think of a lot, but not much that you could convey in that format. Why not? Unless you're mixing up the two (again). I also see that I couldn't convince someone that I am interesting on the resume (in a "beyond doubt" fashion). But that's not the resume. That's the interview. The interview is about triggering interest. I think you're making this harder than it is. Heck, just write: "After only two years on the job I was doing the work of people with 10 years seniority". There, done. Interesting? Definitely. True? Well, it better be, and I am going to see if that is true to my satisfaction. After all, it could be that the people there just sucked.
- bananaface 6y ago
  This is actually quite informative & helpful. Thank you.