6 ms·

I work for a government agency and I can confirm this. It's maddening. When ranking resumes, we are only allowed to consider whether or not they say they have

I work for a government agency and I can confirm this. It's maddening. When ranking resumes, we are only allowed to consider whether or not they say they have the skill we want. We aren't allowed to consider how well written the resume, how compelling the described experience is, external source repositories, etc. So someone who puts "used C sharp on projects" gets the same "yes" as someone who describes, in detail, their extensive C# projects at various organizations, large and small. And, no, we don't even get "5%" for opinion. The reason is, according to the HR contact who so directed me, almost every hire ends in at least one lawsuit from a candidate not selected, claiming unfair hiring practice.

fibbery 14y ago
Have a skills test at the interview?
- steven777400 14y ago
  We do, and it is very effective. The interview is really not a problem, it's just the resume selection that is frustrating. I can't imagine having to interview technical candidates without being able to administer a skills test.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    I do not even bother with resumes anymore. I have found much more effective ways to get noticed. If, on your side of the coin, you also find resumes ineffective, I'm curious why you cling to the practice?
    - steven777400 14y ago
      Our hiring procedures are set by HR. We have to review and rank resumes on a yes/no criteria (the same criteria that appears in the job advert). Then, we can choose how many people to interview, but they must be in sorted order based on resume ranking. In the interview we have to ask the same questions of all candidates. So we can't go from their resume and say "tell me about this project X on your resume". Instead we have to ask generic questions, and if they don't refer to their resume projects, that's a problem. We can do skill tests, as long as they are "objective" and all candidates get the same skill test. So my approach is basically interview everyone who meets the bare minimum criteria, make sure they bring up relevant resume projects in the interview, and then hit them hard with skill tests, and sort from there. Seems to be an acceptable "work around" to the fairly rigid and heavy HR prescribed hiring process.
      - axusgrad 14y ago
        Who writes the job advertisement? That seems like a good place to put desirable experience like "independent projects in X".
    - pc86 14y ago
      Not everyone has the luxury of applying for a job and telling the folks at the company that you "do not even bother" with resumes.
      - randomdata 14y ago
        I don't see it as a luxury. The fact is that resumes just don't work very well as a marketing tool for the amount of effort they take. There are better ways to go about it, in my opinion and experience. There is a very good reason why Apple doesn't give you the "resume" of their devices and I stay away from resumes for the same reason. Finding a job is just sales and marketing, nothing more.
Articulate 14y ago
It is so obvious that there is a problem- but everyone wants to protect themselves from lawsuits-- I don't foresee it getting fixed anytime soon-
jiggy2011 14y ago
Interesting, I'd be curious to know whether any of these lawsuits were successful and to what extent changing the hiring process reduced them? I can imagine that regardless of your hiring procedure you may get people who feel sour about not being picked and will take some action. As far as I was aware in most jurisdictions you can reject a candidate for basically any reason you like as long as it isn't related to race , gender or one of the other protected classes. Rejecting a candidate because their resume is poorly written (suggesting poor communication skills or poor attention to detail) doesn't seem like it should be something which would be controversial and I'd certainly be curious what argument could be made to a court that it should be otherwise?
- steven777400 14y ago
  I have a feeling it's more of a CYA from the HR folks than something that is actually necessary. I don't know for sure. edit: I worked at another government agency in this same state before, and the hiring procedures were not quite as strict (we could evaluate resumes more holistically), so I think it's probably just this HR department.
- powertower 14y ago
  > Interesting, I'd be curious to know whether any of these lawsuits were successful and to what extent changing the hiring process reduced them? The effects of this are very well known... Instead of hiring the best person for the job, you end up hiring the person who meets the minimum qualifications (which are lowered greatly in the process). Then mediocrity, bureaucracy, and incompetence takes over the place. Further, a system of red-tape is created to hold it all together.
powertower 14y ago
Just curious, but do those lawsuits revolve around the race/color of the candidate?
- steven777400 14y ago
  I don't know. We have a very diverse work force so it seems like proving discrimination would be a serious up-hill battle for a candidate. As a mentioned in another reply, I suspect this is more of a CYA from HR rather than a legitimate necessity.
- speeder 14y ago
  I live in Brazil. Here this is extremely common, also when you fire people. So, if you have insider info, you know that: First, if people suspect you are black, homosexual or a women from your resume, they don't interview you in first place. If you DO get to the interview, then it switches, they hire you even if there are better candidates. This is not so strong, the real problem comes in the firing. If a company has 20 engineers, and need to fire 3 to reduce costs, they will fire straight white males first, because if they sue for discrimination, the company can easily defend itself (what sane judge would believe that you got fired for being white, straight or male?). If they REALLY need to fire a black/gay/woman/whatever then they do a mass firing (like, say they are closing the department), and hire back the employees they want. And most important of all, they do everything they can to make employees don't know about this, because when they do, tensions quickly build up, with white straight males sabotaging or acting passive agressive toward everyone else as a sort of perceived self defense (since they don't want to be fired unfairly). All of this also apply to disabled persons too, in Brazil your company is obliged to hire 3% of disabled persons if you have more than 2000 employees. Several callcenters operate with 1999 or they comply with the laws by firing abled persons and hiring disabled until they have 3% of disabled so they can hire able persons again (ie: if you have 1999 employees and zero disabled, start firing abled people and replacing them with disabled until you are sure that when reaching 2000 you have 3% of ables). Again, this create some crazy tensions, with disabled employees getting sabotaged or attacked passively by other employees, that upfront all of them praise the company for being pro-diversity, but behind everyone back want to just keep their jobs.
jpdoctor 14y ago
> we are only allowed to consider whether or not they say they have the skill we want. C'mon, you need to think like a bureaucrat: Just add "clear written communication skills" or "Can write details about past projects associated with C#" or whatever level of specificity you need. Yes, it's a dumbass game.
- michaelhoffman 14y ago
  I once saw "communication skills" on a list of things that could not be put in a job ad, because it could be used to justify discrimination against people of other national origins. So you might need to be more specific.
  - superuser2 14y ago
    If English communication is actually important for the job, then yes, people who can't adequately communicate in English can and should be discriminated against. And yes, people who can't adequately communicate in English tend to be born outside of English-speaking countries. Requiring strong written English to carry boxes could be considered unfair. But for a job that involves written communication?
    - michaelhoffman 14y ago
      The problem identified by the document I saw was the vagueness of this description and also its history in discrimination. It was suggested that very specific terms be used such as "ability to write detailed and understandable reports" if that is a job requirement.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Government agencies are THE WORST for this sort of thing. It is usually because it's more important to prove a lack of corruption or bias, than to prove a particular hire was "the best" person for the job. Government budgets are so awful for a similar reason. A rigid, bureaucratic process exists so that they can always document a lack of corruption. Of course the result is sometimes silly, like when an agency is short-staffed but buys Aeron chairs for everyone--because there was money left in the equipment budget, but they were not permitted to shift it to the contractor or staff budget.
- jff 14y ago
  We spend more money on training and prevention of Waste/Fraud/Abuse than we would actually lose due to the occasional person buying beer with his travel card, but as you said, it's more important to prove we're trying than it is to actually save money.

fibbery 14y ago

Have a skills test at the interview?

steven777400 14y ago
We do, and it is very effective. The interview is really not a problem, it's just the resume selection that is frustrating. I can't imagine having to interview technical candidates without being able to administer a skills test.
- randomdata 14y ago
  I do not even bother with resumes anymore. I have found much more effective ways to get noticed. If, on your side of the coin, you also find resumes ineffective, I'm curious why you cling to the practice?
  - steven777400 14y ago
    Our hiring procedures are set by HR. We have to review and rank resumes on a yes/no criteria (the same criteria that appears in the job advert). Then, we can choose how many people to interview, but they must be in sorted order based on resume ranking. In the interview we have to ask the same questions of all candidates. So we can't go from their resume and say "tell me about this project X on your resume". Instead we have to ask generic questions, and if they don't refer to their resume projects, that's a problem. We can do skill tests, as long as they are "objective" and all candidates get the same skill test. So my approach is basically interview everyone who meets the bare minimum criteria, make sure they bring up relevant resume projects in the interview, and then hit them hard with skill tests, and sort from there. Seems to be an acceptable "work around" to the fairly rigid and heavy HR prescribed hiring process.
    - axusgrad 14y ago
      Who writes the job advertisement? That seems like a good place to put desirable experience like "independent projects in X".
  - pc86 14y ago
    Not everyone has the luxury of applying for a job and telling the folks at the company that you "do not even bother" with resumes.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      I don't see it as a luxury. The fact is that resumes just don't work very well as a marketing tool for the amount of effort they take. There are better ways to go about it, in my opinion and experience. There is a very good reason why Apple doesn't give you the "resume" of their devices and I stay away from resumes for the same reason. Finding a job is just sales and marketing, nothing more.

Articulate 14y ago

It is so obvious that there is a problem- but everyone wants to protect themselves from lawsuits-- I don't foresee it getting fixed anytime soon-

jiggy2011 14y ago

Interesting, I'd be curious to know whether any of these lawsuits were successful and to what extent changing the hiring process reduced them? I can imagine that regardless of your hiring procedure you may get people who feel sour about not being picked and will take some action. As far as I was aware in most jurisdictions you can reject a candidate for basically any reason you like as long as it isn't related to race , gender or one of the other protected classes. Rejecting a candidate because their resume is poorly written (suggesting poor communication skills or poor attention to detail) doesn't seem like it should be something which would be controversial and I'd certainly be curious what argument could be made to a court that it should be otherwise?

steven777400 14y ago
I have a feeling it's more of a CYA from the HR folks than something that is actually necessary. I don't know for sure. edit: I worked at another government agency in this same state before, and the hiring procedures were not quite as strict (we could evaluate resumes more holistically), so I think it's probably just this HR department.
powertower 14y ago
> Interesting, I'd be curious to know whether any of these lawsuits were successful and to what extent changing the hiring process reduced them? The effects of this are very well known... Instead of hiring the best person for the job, you end up hiring the person who meets the minimum qualifications (which are lowered greatly in the process). Then mediocrity, bureaucracy, and incompetence takes over the place. Further, a system of red-tape is created to hold it all together.

powertower 14y ago

Just curious, but do those lawsuits revolve around the race/color of the candidate?

steven777400 14y ago
I don't know. We have a very diverse work force so it seems like proving discrimination would be a serious up-hill battle for a candidate. As a mentioned in another reply, I suspect this is more of a CYA from HR rather than a legitimate necessity.
speeder 14y ago
I live in Brazil. Here this is extremely common, also when you fire people. So, if you have insider info, you know that: First, if people suspect you are black, homosexual or a women from your resume, they don't interview you in first place. If you DO get to the interview, then it switches, they hire you even if there are better candidates. This is not so strong, the real problem comes in the firing. If a company has 20 engineers, and need to fire 3 to reduce costs, they will fire straight white males first, because if they sue for discrimination, the company can easily defend itself (what sane judge would believe that you got fired for being white, straight or male?). If they REALLY need to fire a black/gay/woman/whatever then they do a mass firing (like, say they are closing the department), and hire back the employees they want. And most important of all, they do everything they can to make employees don't know about this, because when they do, tensions quickly build up, with white straight males sabotaging or acting passive agressive toward everyone else as a sort of perceived self defense (since they don't want to be fired unfairly). All of this also apply to disabled persons too, in Brazil your company is obliged to hire 3% of disabled persons if you have more than 2000 employees. Several callcenters operate with 1999 or they comply with the laws by firing abled persons and hiring disabled until they have 3% of disabled so they can hire able persons again (ie: if you have 1999 employees and zero disabled, start firing abled people and replacing them with disabled until you are sure that when reaching 2000 you have 3% of ables). Again, this create some crazy tensions, with disabled employees getting sabotaged or attacked passively by other employees, that upfront all of them praise the company for being pro-diversity, but behind everyone back want to just keep their jobs.

jpdoctor 14y ago

> we are only allowed to consider whether or not they say they have the skill we want. C'mon, you need to think like a bureaucrat: Just add "clear written communication skills" or "Can write details about past projects associated with C#" or whatever level of specificity you need. Yes, it's a dumbass game.

michaelhoffman 14y ago
I once saw "communication skills" on a list of things that could not be put in a job ad, because it could be used to justify discrimination against people of other national origins. So you might need to be more specific.
- superuser2 14y ago
  If English communication is actually important for the job, then yes, people who can't adequately communicate in English can and should be discriminated against. And yes, people who can't adequately communicate in English tend to be born outside of English-speaking countries. Requiring strong written English to carry boxes could be considered unfair. But for a job that involves written communication?
  - michaelhoffman 14y ago
    The problem identified by the document I saw was the vagueness of this description and also its history in discrimination. It was suggested that very specific terms be used such as "ability to write detailed and understandable reports" if that is a job requirement.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Government agencies are THE WORST for this sort of thing. It is usually because it's more important to prove a lack of corruption or bias, than to prove a particular hire was "the best" person for the job. Government budgets are so awful for a similar reason. A rigid, bureaucratic process exists so that they can always document a lack of corruption. Of course the result is sometimes silly, like when an agency is short-staffed but buys Aeron chairs for everyone--because there was money left in the equipment budget, but they were not permitted to shift it to the contractor or staff budget.

jff 14y ago
We spend more money on training and prevention of Waste/Fraud/Abuse than we would actually lose due to the occasional person buying beer with his travel card, but as you said, it's more important to prove we're trying than it is to actually save money.