Equivocal Resumes and Nonsensical Recruiters

A resume is a written or digital document that provides vivid insight into work history, professional skills and employment qualifications of a job applicant. Or so the theory goes. Nowadays, it is commonplace for many job seekers to think outside the box when crafting their resumes. Some use creative or controversial mediums to display their resumes such as billboards, personal web pages, origami, menus and brochures. Why not?.

The responsibility that empowers a human resources staff when cherrypicking candidates for interviews and potential job offers is pivotal to the well-being of an applicant’s family and future! The duty is in fact an integral part of the daily routine and perhaps even a mundane action lost in the myriad of other functionalities juggled by HR recruiters.

No one talks about the hundreds or perhaps thousands of resumes that are dismissed on a daily basis at sizeable Fortune 500 corporations and other fancy businesses. Never mind that we are living in the 21st century. The initial selection of candidates at some companies is based solely on what is perceived at face value on their resumes. I am actually wondering if in fact the so-called stipulation of equal opportunity is actively enforced when we consider the vast volume of resumes flooding inboxes and fax machines that never receive a response. Do companies hire staff sufficient to review every submitted resume? I stand to reason that perhaps equal opportunity is a misnomer, for why are thousands of applicant’s resumes so casually dismissed? I am not into criticizing Fortune 500 companies or those who view capitalism as an evil force that drains human beings in an unfair system. I am a pro-business capitalist who believes in fairness and equality. The resume-recruiting process within American corporations is in dire need of reform.

Every single candidate that applies for an employment position from the least to the most compensation is a human being with goals, aspirations and expectations. Therefore, every candidate deserves acknowledgment regarding the status of their submission and feedback if they did not qualify for the position at hand. Otherwise, the system is inadequate, leaning toward inequality and lending itself to major mistakes.

Some professionals understand the charade of language that captures the attention of recruiters and craft their resumes accordingly. Despite background checks, there are applicants who fabricate (euphemism for lie) or embellish their resumes to portray themselves as ideal candidates in the eyes of recruiters. For instance, the former CEO of Yahoo Scott Thompson lied on his resume and it cost him his position. Recently, David Tovar, a prominent executive leader at Walt-Mart was forced to resign because he lied about his graduation date and Alma Mater even though he never graduated.

Hello?! These are colossal failures on the part of human resources departments at these respective corporations! What if these two executives had been industrial or business spies with false resumes and the intention of stealing company secrets or pirating classified information? I am certainly not implying that this was the case. But who knows what is really happening in such cases unworthy of media attention because they lack the luster and prominence of these two gentlemen. Without reform, this day and age is not exempt from potential terrorists qualifying as executives of major companies as long as the tried and questionable process of resume review continues in HR resource departments.

But hey folks, these situations are occurring even on the most ‘secure’ levels. Take Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda for example, who lied about two of his wartime medals, a lie that cost him his life.

What drives outstanding, incredibly capable, skilled and competent candidates to lie on their resumes? The need to impress HR personnel to land a position based more on "pedigree" and ornate words than competence. Often, talent and skills are acquired at the university of life where pedigrees and frilly words are overridden by ability and decisions in work experience.

How many of you raise a brow when you hear that someone with no formal college education lacking the prerequisite Ivy league background is an accomplished and very savvy business person? And what is most peculiar is the distorted gossip of those who find such a success story so fantastic that they conclude such a person must be a drug dealer or a kept woman, among other illusions.

Consider poppycock articles entitled something to the effect of "Write a Winning Resume", or "How to Write a Kick Ass Resume", or better yet, "What Companies Look for on Resumes". And the blogs which post these articles are followed by battalions of eager readers looking for the elusive lingo that catches the eyes of a recruiter whose job is to look for those "bingo" moments on a resume.

The whole resume thing is awkward and disconcerting. Companies and employment seekers alike would mutually benefit from a more efficient assessment of employment eligibility through software generated decision-making simulators. Either by telephone or email, a candidate would navigate through a series of tests that assess credentials by gauging skills, knowledge, wisdom, ethics and ability to troubleshoot. Such a system would allow HR recruiters to effectively sift through unqualified applicants thereby revealing candidates pre-qualified for interviews. With this software, the entire process leading up to the interview would practically take care of itself. A system like this already exist in some capacity.

Dismissing a potential employee because his or her resume fails to dazzle a recruiter with semantics such as charm, punctuation or magical keywords is complacency at its finest. Corporations need to be enlightened with a serious kick in the corporate butt.

Luis E Woolley. Vice President Scan Archives