Organizations hiring practices have become fragile. I believe a piece of this fragility is a result of a more complex workplace. Part of the complexity comes from natural evolution within the economy. The number of occupations and jobs within the occupations are changing and evolving. With some disappearing and brand new jobs taking their place. The workplace consists of a multigeneration workforce that can engage with organizations in a variety of work arrangements. This new complexity has pushed organizations to build systems in an attempt to simplify things. However, these systems seem to be causing more harm than good. One technology that is found in most organizations' talent structure is Applicant Tracking Systems, aka ATS. The ATS technology filter resumes based on word selection. The resumes that match a certain number of words with the job description get shortlisted while others are removed from consideration. This is not new to any job seekers or any organization. The technology has been around for quite some time now. It has become a key part of the organization's talent selection process.
While this technology may save time upfront, organizations are making a big mistake by placing high confidence in the resume as the first line of defense. I believe the harm ATS are causing outweighs the benefits from efficiency if there even is any. For one, job seekers have outsmarted this ATS barrier. For example, there is something called the "White Out" strategy. Where candidates type in white font a variety of likely keywords in the header and footer of their resume. So while the font cannot be seen easily to the human eye, the ATS software will pick it up. I don't agree with this practice; however, I don't think many job seekers have any other options, as the ATS system itself is flawed.
Job seekers either embellish their resumes or suffer the consequences of not getting opportunities to interview. Over time candidates, just as any of us would, become desperate and take necessary actions. They embellish to purely get an opportunity to converse with a human and share their career journey (interview). The selection process requires collaboration between candidates and organizations. An ideal outcome is beneficial for both. In essence, they are both working towards the same objective. A candidate doesn't want to join an organization they won't fit into or do a job they are not qualified to do. Both are stressful and can make life miserable for us. Vise versa, an organization does not want to invest in hiring a person that cannot do the job and will negatively impact the culture. However, the ATS engages organizations and candidates in an untrustworthy manner.
Job seekers are not the only culprit here. The job descriptions organization post are of poor quality, out of date, and exhaustive. Yet these are utilized as the first line of defense to filter who is qualified enough to earn an interview. To recap, we have candidates that embellish their resumes to beat an ATS, that is evaluating candidates based on average quality, at best, job descriptions. This reminded me of a quote.
"The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence."
While a resume might not contain the keys words the organization uses (or expects), it doesn't mean the candidate is not capable of doing the task. Yet this is common practice within most organizations. Either we reinvent the resume and its purpose or get rid of it. It's obvious that while the resume primary use is to filter talent, it's no longer authentic.
I vote we reinvent the resume or revert back to the resumes of Da Vinci's time. When Da Vinci created his resume for the Duke of Milan, he didn't just list the past achievements.* Instead, he listed everything he could do for the Duke now (he was currently at war) and what he could do for the Duke in times of peace. The restrictions of the resume truly eliminate the valuable information that can be of aid in the selection process. Where is the value in the resume if they are all the same? Same keywords, structure, and format.
I don't know if there is a universal solution. A good place to start is by coming to terms with the definitions and expectations. Currently, the workplace has two terms that are used interchangeably but mean different things. A Curriculum Vitae (CV) Latin for "course of life", has no required length. While a Resume French for "summary", is expected to be 2-3 pages. I define a resume as a piece of work that showcases one's individual skill, abilities, and knowledge that pertain to the job they have an interest in obtaining. I would be completely ok if a musician's resume consisted of videos of musical performances, and if a programmer's resume consisted of an application they created.
To be clear, I am not blaming Applicant Tracking Systems but am highlighting its uselessness. The workplace is far too complex for organizations to be gambling on the talent they hire. An organization that depend on ATS as a first line of defense will have long term consequences. Including poor hires, and countless missed opportunities (all the qualified candidates that didn't get shortlisted).
*Da Vinci has received credit for being the first person to create or use a resume.
Comments