3 ms·

Here's what I think is unsaid about the pre-interview stage. Most resumes are junk (recruiter spam, unqualified candidates, perennial candidates who continually

Here's what I think is unsaid about the pre-interview stage. Most resumes are junk (recruiter spam, unqualified candidates, perennial candidates who continually punch above their weight class). Your job, pre-interview, is to prove that you're not one of them. Another way to look at it is to establish that your job searching doesn't reflect negatively on you. (Being employed at the time helps.) Everyone job searches, but the bad candidates spend a lot more time doing it. For example, someone who applies to 5 unrelated positions isn't looking for a career upgrade or new challenges, but just looking for a job in general. That's not attractive. Once you're in the interview process, you don't have to answer for the mere fact of looking for a job. You've cleared that stigma.

fecak 13y ago
I'd agree. Maybe 75% of the resumes I get are, as you colorfully say, punching above the weight class. I've continued to encourage job seekers (whether or not they are using my recruiting service) to apply to less jobs and spend more time on those fewer applications. I devoted at least a handful of pages in my book on this exact topic, to at least create the image of a passive job seeker even during active searches.
d23 13y ago
> Everyone job searches, but the bad candidates spend a lot more time doing it. This sums up what my experience seems to be hiring. I've never really thought of it that way, but there's a clear selection bias. The good ones get snatched up quickly; the bad ones spam out to every damn listing they see.
- fecak 13y ago
  Good candidates are rarely on the market for an extended period of time, and are often much easier for experienced recruiters and hiring managers to identify than mediocre or below average candidates. When I have a candidate that I know is in the top tier, I'll advise clients that they need to move quickly or lose their chance to even see them, because other companies will be relatively quick and aggressive to hire. It's not much different than real estate, where if you see a house that has been on the market for a long time you may be less inclined to give it a look. Thankfully, job seekers don't have listing dates unless they choose to post a resume publicly.

fecak 13y ago

I'd agree. Maybe 75% of the resumes I get are, as you colorfully say, punching above the weight class. I've continued to encourage job seekers (whether or not they are using my recruiting service) to apply to less jobs and spend more time on those fewer applications. I devoted at least a handful of pages in my book on this exact topic, to at least create the image of a passive job seeker even during active searches.

d23 13y ago

> Everyone job searches, but the bad candidates spend a lot more time doing it. This sums up what my experience seems to be hiring. I've never really thought of it that way, but there's a clear selection bias. The good ones get snatched up quickly; the bad ones spam out to every damn listing they see.

fecak 13y ago
Good candidates are rarely on the market for an extended period of time, and are often much easier for experienced recruiters and hiring managers to identify than mediocre or below average candidates. When I have a candidate that I know is in the top tier, I'll advise clients that they need to move quickly or lose their chance to even see them, because other companies will be relatively quick and aggressive to hire. It's not much different than real estate, where if you see a house that has been on the market for a long time you may be less inclined to give it a look. Thankfully, job seekers don't have listing dates unless they choose to post a resume publicly.