Amitai Givertz’s Recruitomatic Blog

HR Guy: I read your post Announcement: Resume Workshop and would like to comment.

Increasingly I find it difficult to suggest practical uses for resumes. I have come to view them as problematic on a number of levels and look forward to the day that the Curriculum Vitae will go the same way as the Didus Ineptus.

I am aware that resumes continue to be a sort of currency in some circles and that too much criticism may draw more ire than interest. But for something that justifies such huge investments of time, money and effort for an ROI measured in piles and piles of paper that end up on managers’ desks gathering dust, and eventually, at best, shredded to make bedding for hamsters and defecating puppies, I have to question what is really going on. Don’t you?

The real rant for me is this: it’s not that resumes can be used to pervert the truth or skew meaningful data; it’s not that resumes fill applicant tracking systems and slow search engines to a crawl; its not that entire industries have been built on subjective views being expressed as objective facts. And it’s not that we have institutionalized navel contemplation.  My overriding problem is that most everything to do with resumes is fundamentally flawed. Otherwise, how is it they draw so much comment?

In the interests of full disclosure: I am a consumer and trader in resumes and human souls. That’s not an apology. It’s a fact. Like you, HR Guy, I’m a recruiter. Good luck.

A timely Recruiting.com post talks about the Electronic Recruiting Exchange’s planned editorial diversion: Inside Recruiting. As it happens, I spoke to ERE’s Todd Raphael (the editor) just yesterday about my desire to write for him. Todd politely declined my offer based on his assertion that I am a “vendor” and therefore may be either content-compromised, self-serving or both. Todd very kindly sent me the guidelines for submitting articles anyway, but I suspect only because he was uncomfortable saying: “You’re annoying me, go away.” If that’s the case, Todd, I apologize.

This is what Todd did tell me. He plans to take the editorial focus for ERE in a new direction and wants articles to be written by “actual real life recruiting practitioners.” Fair enough. Todd graciously said he would like to possibly reference me in the Inside Recruiting sidebar page: Tips of the Trade. Odd place to put a “vendor”, don’t you think?

Todd said he liked my Indeed.com post, and that was the type of original work he was looking for, provided I gave it to him first. I'm not sure why I would want to do that. Anyway, I hope Inside Recruiting generates tons of new advertising dollars for ERE and more page views too. But not for me, Todd – thank you.

This is what Todd and I could agree on:

1. ERE – like many others in recruitment publishing – is suffering from the malaise brought on by content regurgitation. It doesn’t take article upon article upon article to differentiate between the thousand ways to skin a cat and the single most effective way to actually do it. There’s only one best way to do anything. That includes recruiting. Parts One, Two, Three and Four. And Five and Six. And parts Seven and Eight.

2. Todd needs fresh, original, so-that’s-how-Valero-does-it content. That’s what the readership wants. That’s what the readership must have. It’s the only way. Leading edge but not edgy. Case study but not case-in-point.

3. ERE readers are “suspicious” of “vendors” peddling their wares under a thin guise of subject matter expertise. Well, pardon me. I have never once considered buying anything from Lou Adler, but I’m sure I speak for around 65,000 other readers when I say we would miss his regular contributions and insight. And so would ERE’s advertisers. Trust me, I know – oops, that’s vendor-speak creeping in! I guess Todd was right after all.

4. As a percentage of the total recruiting workforce, ERE only reaches a tiny fraction of the people who need their content the most. That’s the real shame. I can tell you, most of the recruiters I talk to don’t have a clue that ERE even exists, let alone what it promotes. Instead of trying to reinvent ERE, it might better serve the profession if the franchise expanded its readership beyond the clique it seems so preoccupied with cultivating.

I will continue to read ERE every day. Why? Because I love it. For years it has been an invaluable resource and continues to be an inspiration for me and those I work with. I share ERE with as many people as I can, and so should you. Truthfully, (aagh – vendor-speak again!) my only criticism is that the pages take longer to load than it takes a good recruiter to find a job. And as far as rehashing the content, some things are worth repeating over and over and over again, especially when they’re right on – and as long as cats have nine lives.
 
So if you’re a recruiting practitioner with a big-name company – or even a lesser-known entity, but with a couple of good tricks up your sleeve – and you don’t mind divulging your competitive advantage to those scrambling for the same talent you just recruited, give Todd a call. He’ll put you on the front page.

Indeed.com is really in the advertising game. And they play it well. Part of their strategy is to drive traffic from as many places as possible and one way to do this is to have their search engine available in as many places as possible. Anyone who has a mind to, and a smidgeon of technical know-how, can add Indeed.com’s Job Search to their site. For Indeed.com at least, it's mission accomplished.

Bearing in mind that Indeed.com is for job seekers to use, and provides no service for employers, here’s the alternate use for you:

1. On your careers page/job profiles make a bold statement like: "If you think you can find a better job than this one, try it" and invite them to search thousands of jobs from thousands of job boards - and your competition too - with just a click. That should say something about your confidence as an employer, don't you think?

2. Take the candidate to a really simple registration page. Name, number, and email should be enough. Invite them to bookmark the page and to come back as often as they like for their job search. With their email address, market to them as you please.

3. Once they’ve registered, another you-branded page explains that you understand that, just as you are very selective about who you want to talk to, they - your candidate - should be equally selective about who they consider applying to. A little bit of fear and doubt might give them pause to think twice and click back. Otherwise, let them enter their search criteria and say, "Goodbye".

A few words of caution:

1. Don’t do this unless you are feeding your jobs to Indeed.com. You want your postings to show up and, hopefully, stand out. Getting your postings up is simple enough and you should probably be doing it anyway. You can learn how on Indeed.com.

2. You will be told by some purist that this is a crazy, half-baked idea! Mumble something about this actually being a branding/retention play and quote the old Chinese proverb: "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If it doesn't, it never was. We do not possess anything in this world, least of all other people. We only imagine that we do. Our friends, our lovers, our spouses, our children [even our candidates and employees] are not ours; they belong only to themselves." Smile sheepishly.

3. This strategy assumes a) you have your employment brand under control; b) a half-way decent employment site that candidates would be inclined to bookmark; and c) you believe that you can compete head-on and win.

With these minor things under your belt, if you have the guts to try this, let me know how it turns out.