4 ms·

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 a

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.

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.