Advertise a job vacancy and you'll get at least 250 résumés.
Time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Your biggest challenge is to not get bamboozled by the padding and outright lies. According to Grad School Hub, 40 percent of those surveyed admitted to lying on their résumés and job applications, while 78 percent said their résumés are "misleading."
And then there's the danger of disqualifying people who may have all the qualities you're looking for but don't look good on a résumé. Maybe they have unorthodox backgrounds or simply don't know how to market themselves on paper.
Résumés may tell you how well a person performed a previous or current job. But unless you're looking for someone to do the exact same job he or she had in the past, a résumé won't give you insight into how the person will perform in the future.
Résumés are useless.
After making all the hiring mistakes and looking into the research and best practices, I've decided to do away with résumés altogether.
The best way to assess a person's suitability for a job is to get a good picture of him or her through multiple perspectives.
Pretend They Have the Job
Instead of asking for résumés, I ask candidates to fill out an online application, which has questions and tasks that simulate the job. For a student coach job, for example, the application could ask, "How would you respond to this question from a student?" For a writing position, I would give a short writing task.
The application form can also include behavioral questions such as "Tell me about a time you took initiative at work." Questions like that help me see, first, how the candidate frames the question, and second, how he or she demonstrated a specific quality in previous jobs.
These simulations let me know which candidates have the technical proficiency to get the job done. I can easily make a shortlist based on actual performance. It also discourages those who don't have the required skills, so they eliminate themselves from the process.
More complicated jobs may require more elaborate simulations. I may pay a shortlisted candidate to take on a project. Or I may hire someone on a contract basis for a few months to test the waters before extending an offer.
To get a more holistic view of each person, I use other data points.
Assessments, Appraisals, and Evaluations Galore
Online assessments give me snapshots of a person's strengths, styles, and potential. These include the Clifton StrengthsFinder, Fascination Advantage Assessment, Motivators Assessment, and a cognitive aptitude test. (Note: Check your laws about which assessments you can legally use in recruiting.)
The results give me a better understanding of the candidate, but I don't give any of these tests an enormous amount of weight. I neither hire nor disqualify a candidate on the basis of any one of these assessments alone. That would be as stupid as making a hiring decision on the basis of a résumé.
If I had two candidates who were very similar, then one of these assessments could make a difference. Otherwise, all these data points help by giving me a more robust picture of each candidate.
Finally, the Interview
Candidates who make it this far have proved they can do the job.
If I have questions from what I know so far, then I'll bring them up in the interview. But mostly, I want to get a sense of the chemistry. What will it be like to actually work with this person?
The typical job interview can't predict how good a person will be in a job. But it has decent predictability in terms of how well I'll get along with a person. This is another piece of the overall perspective.
Also, by now, I know more about the candidate than he or she does about me and my team. I want to level the playing field and see what questions the person has. So I let him or her do most of the asking.
Résumés are useless when hiring. Other tools can better predict future success and culture fit. It's time to terminate résumés.