3 ms·

> As it turned out, people were pretty bad at filtering resumes across the board, and after running the numbers, it began to look like resumes might not be a pa

by mbesto 12y ago

> As it turned out, people were pretty bad at filtering resumes across the board, and after running the numbers, it began to look like resumes might not be a particularly effective filtering tool in the first place. Her theory - people suck at filtering because the tool they use is poor. > it may not be a matter of being good or bad at judging resumes but rather a matter of the task itself being flawed — at the end of the day, the resume is a low-signal document. Resumes suck for hiring all people. But that's not the purpose of a resume -- it's a low-signal filter to weed out the initial batch of candidates. If you treat hiring like a sales funnel (and you should), then a resume is a great way to eliminate unnecessary time for your team to assess someone's cultural fit. Expecting the resume to be high signal filter is pretty naive.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> If you treat hiring like a sales funnel (and you should), then a resume is a great way to eliminate unnecessary time for your team to assess someone's cultural fit. Where's the evidence that it is great at this? Certainly, its a basis for narrowing the set of candidates that get further review, but is it a good basis?
- mbesto 12y ago
  Where's the evidence that there is a better alternative? I was slightly perturbed by the original author as she offered no real solution.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Where's the evidence that there is a better alternative? Where's the evidence that resumes are better than random selection among applicants into the next round, much less enough better to be a net positive given the resources that go into reviewing them?
    - mbesto 12y ago
      Huh? I think you're confusing the concept of "top of the funnel". Are you suggesting that I randomly select people to interview from a pile of resumes? What if I get a marketing person who has no software experience in the pile for a software developer job?
      - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
        >Are you suggesting that I randomly select people to interview from a pile of resumes? What if I get a marketing person who has no software experience in the pile for a software developer job? Well, yeah. If you don't have any better metric, the best result comes from filtering out everyone who just blatantly submitted a resume for the wrong job entirely, and then selecting from the remaining pool at random.
        DanBC 12y ago
        dragonwriter suggested "don't use resumes, just seldect at random". You're suggesting "use resumes, then select randomly". You appear to be agreeing with mbesto.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        I am not suggesting anything, I am asking where the evidence is that the practice of asking for and reviewing résumés has positive expected meet utility as a filtering mechanism, and your responses suggest to me that for you that practice is not evidence based but based in unchallenged intuition.
  - itsdrewmiller 12y ago
    She did suggest an idea - asking for a clear explanation of a project, as a sort of writing sample.
    - itsdrewmiller 12y ago
      It's definitely not a solution for an employer who is just like scraping resumes off of Monster or something, but it's not much different from the uncontroversial practice of asking for a cover letter.
    - mbesto 12y ago
      But that's on the applicant's side of the equation. How is that a solution for the employer?
moron4hire 12y ago
"Cultural fit" is far too often code word for discrimination.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
No, you shouldn't treat hiring like a sales funnel, you really shouldn't. Treat hiring like an investment, because it is. Treat it like a competitive advantage, because it is. Treat it like a skill your company and everyone in it needs to constantly be improving at, because they do. Treat it like one of the most important things you do, because it is. A company is made up of people, hiring is to a company as mitosis is to the human body, it's fundamental. The better you can be at hiring the better your company will be. More talented, more capable employees translates to better execution on projects, better ideas, better products, more revenue, a higher profile, and a greater pull for more talent out in the industry. If you treat it like boiler room telemarketing grabass then you'll end up with a company to match those ideals.

by mbesto 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> If you treat hiring like a sales funnel (and you should), then a resume is a great way to eliminate unnecessary time for your team to assess someone's cultural fit. Where's the evidence that it is great at this? Certainly, its a basis for narrowing the set of candidates that get further review, but is it a good basis?

mbesto 12y ago
Where's the evidence that there is a better alternative? I was slightly perturbed by the original author as she offered no real solution.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Where's the evidence that there is a better alternative? Where's the evidence that resumes are better than random selection among applicants into the next round, much less enough better to be a net positive given the resources that go into reviewing them?
  - mbesto 12y ago
    Huh? I think you're confusing the concept of "top of the funnel". Are you suggesting that I randomly select people to interview from a pile of resumes? What if I get a marketing person who has no software experience in the pile for a software developer job?
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >Are you suggesting that I randomly select people to interview from a pile of resumes? What if I get a marketing person who has no software experience in the pile for a software developer job? Well, yeah. If you don't have any better metric, the best result comes from filtering out everyone who just blatantly submitted a resume for the wrong job entirely, and then selecting from the remaining pool at random.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        dragonwriter suggested "don't use resumes, just seldect at random". You're suggesting "use resumes, then select randomly". You appear to be agreeing with mbesto.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      I am not suggesting anything, I am asking where the evidence is that the practice of asking for and reviewing résumés has positive expected meet utility as a filtering mechanism, and your responses suggest to me that for you that practice is not evidence based but based in unchallenged intuition.
- itsdrewmiller 12y ago
  She did suggest an idea - asking for a clear explanation of a project, as a sort of writing sample.
  - itsdrewmiller 12y ago
    It's definitely not a solution for an employer who is just like scraping resumes off of Monster or something, but it's not much different from the uncontroversial practice of asking for a cover letter.
  - mbesto 12y ago
    But that's on the applicant's side of the equation. How is that a solution for the employer?

moron4hire 12y ago

"Cultural fit" is far too often code word for discrimination.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

No, you shouldn't treat hiring like a sales funnel, you really shouldn't. Treat hiring like an investment, because it is. Treat it like a competitive advantage, because it is. Treat it like a skill your company and everyone in it needs to constantly be improving at, because they do. Treat it like one of the most important things you do, because it is. A company is made up of people, hiring is to a company as mitosis is to the human body, it's fundamental. The better you can be at hiring the better your company will be. More talented, more capable employees translates to better execution on projects, better ideas, better products, more revenue, a higher profile, and a greater pull for more talent out in the industry. If you treat it like boiler room telemarketing grabass then you'll end up with a company to match those ideals.