Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Businesses Technology

Automated Hiring Software is Mistakenly Rejecting Millions of Viable Job Candidates (theverge.com) 170

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Automated resume-scanning software is contributing to a "broken" hiring system in the US, says a new report from Harvard Business School. Such software is used by employers to filter job applicants, but is mistakenly rejecting millions of viable candidates, say the study's authors. It's contributing to the problem of "hidden workers" -- individuals who are able and willing to work, but remain locked out of jobs by structural problems in the labor market. From a report: The study's authors identify a number of factors blocking people from employment, but say automated hiring software is one of the biggest. These programs are used by 75 percent of US employers (rising to 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies), and were adopted in response to a rise in digital job applications from the '90s onwards. Technology has made it easier for people to apply for jobs, but also easier for companies to reject them. The exact mechanics of how automated software mistakenly reject candidates are varied, but generally stem from the use of overly-simplistic criteria to divide "good" and "bad" applicants.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Automated Hiring Software is Mistakenly Rejecting Millions of Viable Job Candidates More

Automated Hiring Software is Mistakenly Rejecting Millions of Viable Job Candidates

Comments Filter:

  • If you don't have a four year college degree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @12:57PM (#61769161)
    Nobody's interested. That's because they know they can get an H-1B who's younger and cheaper. The quality of the work doesn't matter when the work is being done that cheaply and when you flood the market with job applicants lowering wages across the board.

    I know several baby boomers making the same wages they were making 20 years ago after 20 years of hyperinflation disguised by basket of goods trickery.

    It's funny to watch these economists who know there's a problem but because they have a certain worldview with certain fixed beliefs can't actually address the problem. The Koch brothers had noticed the economists kept poking holes in their nonsensical economic theories and paid the cash starved universities bribes in the form of grants to pack their economics departments with a certain type of thinker. These nonsensical stories are the result.

    • The great fallacy of any strain of economists is that they think they have enough information to explain what they see.

      The communists thought they could explain away their dismal economic output by an insufficient devotion to the cause among the proletariat or among the factory managers.

      Austrian School libertarians think they can explain anything and everything in terms of the next quarter's earnings projections.

      And all of them make half-assed retrospective measurements and call it science. I remember read

      • Communism and libertarianism were both designed by economists. Not coincidentally, both of them see the individual as a fungible cog in the economy.

        Stay away from political systems designed by economists. We are not here to serve the economy. The economy is here to serve us!

    • Re:If you don't have a four year college degree (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @03:57PM (#61769659) Journal
      Good Indian engineers are not cheap [moneycontrol.com] The salaries are rising in India too. In exchange rate terms, it is still around 60,000 USD to 100,000 USD for a top class engineer in Bengaluru or Chennai. But labor is cheap in India. Someone making 60 K USD a year in India will have a cook, a maid, a driver. And send kids to top class schools, hire the best tuition masters and coaching schools. These guys are not going to come to USA even for 200K USD in East coast or 300K USD in West coast. They know the prices and cost of living completely. Especially if the engineer is a woman. Even if the male engineers are willing their wives are not.

      So you will get second/third class Indian engineers in H1B. This is why H1B quality sucks.

      I emigrated when US was the place to be, back in the 1990s. I have not seen an IIT grad resume in USA for 10 or 15 years now. Back then, they used to ask me, "How did you go? teach us how to immigrate to USA!" Now a days they are asking me, "Uncle, why did you go to USA?"

    • Wether someone is interested in you or not and is willing to pay in the US these days probably has very little to do with a college degree and everything to do with wether you can deliver what is requested or not.

      College degrees in the US these days are a dime (errrm ... sorry 400k$ debt) a dozen and thus either needed for b*llshit jobs or for corporations where some anonymous HR decider doesn't want to get shafted for hiring "the wrong guy without a degree".

      And I doubt any HB1 person can deliver specialise

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        Wether someone is interested in you or not and is willing to pay in the US these days probably has very little to do with a college degree and everything to do with wether you can deliver what is requested or not.

        That's the way it should be. The problem is, how do you structure the employment process so as to find out whether the applicant can deliver what it requested or not?

        The answer is, most hiring processes aren't very good at doing that.

        Whether somebody has a college degree is a proxy: you know that this person has at least minimal skills in being able to sit down and focus.

      • ...

        College degrees in the US these days are a dime (errrm ... sorry 400k$ debt) ...

        Yeah, I completely disagree.

        Just checked the UCLA registrar website to get a handle on the quarterly/annual fees for undergrad. While quite a lot more than when I was there (they likely wouldn't let me in now!) a year of undergrad at UCLA costs $17k in fees. In the UC system, for standard undergrad and non-professional schools, they don't charge you for credit hours. Take as many classes as you can mentally afford to do.That explicitly does not include housing, since you've gotta live somewhere anyway. Sou

  • ...robots and AI systems instead of humans.

  • Badly managed companies (Score:3)

    by packrat0x ( 798359 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @12:58PM (#61769167)

    Let them die. If a company is pre-filtering viable candidates *and* can't fill vacancies, the company is no use to society.

  • Consequence? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @12:58PM (#61769171) Homepage

    Was the consequence that employers couldn't find qualified applicants? If the answer is no, then there isn't a problem.

    Yes, that's harsh to hear, but the truth of the matter is that for every open position you can expect to get far more applications than you could ever give serious consideration to. Employers are the ones with the resource ( jobs ), so they can determine how they award them. As potential employees, it's incumbent upon us to be aware of the constraints of the system and find ways to work within those constraints.

    I tailor my resume to use words in the job description, for instance. I include a cover letter than includes data about the company itself ( usually from their "about us" page ). That's how the game is played. That's how the game is always going to be played.

    • Re:Consequence? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by raynet ( 51803 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @01:29PM (#61769291) Homepage

      Just remember to click yes on all requirements even if you don't actually have them, this way you might get to talk to a person and explain why some of those requirements are not actually valid or needed or you can learn them.

      • 'Five years experience administering Windows 11' probably.

        • Re: Consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @02:29PM (#61769443)

          In that same vein [twitter.com]:

          I saw a job post the other day.

          It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI.

          I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing.

          Maybe it's time to re-evaluate that "years of experience = skill level".

          BTW, I'm not really looking for job opportunities, I'm too happy where I am right now to look anywhere else.

          But it was still fun to see that.

          • Re: Consequence? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @04:14PM (#61769699)

            Relatedly, there's this one [twitter.com]:

            Last year I got rejected during a job interview for “not understanding” the concepts of a certain iOS library. What the interviewer didn’t know: I wrote that thing. I actually had a lot of fun during that interview

            Be sure to read the full story in a later set of tweets [twitter.com]. It's a very quick read.

            For my part, I'm of the opinion that:
            1) Competent people racking up stories like these isn't a problem, so long as they land a job shortly thereafter. Sadly, competent people aren't always the most competent at networking, which is an important skill to develop, not just to get your foot in the door, but also so that you know which doors are deserving of your knocking when that times comes.

            2) Incompetent employers complaining that they can't find applicants isn't a problem. That's them being outcompeted in the market. Adapt or die.

            3) Competent employers failing to find the applicants they want is a problem, but it's a temporary, fixable one, because they recognize they're in competition and know which levers to pull (e.g. offer more money) to increase their competitiveness. If a company can't address the issues keeping them from getting the applicants they want, I'd challenge whether they're fit to be called "competent" in the first place.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sfcat ( 872532 )

              Competent people racking up stories like these isn't a problem, so long as they land a job shortly thereafter.

              Took me a year last time I looked for a job. I have a ton of stories like those in the tweet. I have been on both sides of the table when a question was asked by someone (not me) who didn't actually know the correct answer. People are petty. It tends to go away after 30 or so (depending on the person). Ever wonder why you see companies with a median age of 25 so often? Its because after you hire a few of those folks, they start filtering out those that know more than them (either accidently or on purp

        • Ha! I’ve got ten!

        • Re: Consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @04:43PM (#61769769)

          'Five years experience administering Windows 11' probably.

          Just be ready to answer, "Yes, I have five years experience administering Windows, including Windows 11."

          You have to speak their language. If you refuse to speak it, if you think you're too good to speak that way... start a small company and provide your services to them as a consultant, for when they get enough people through their hiring system...

          • Or even, for when they can't get enough people through their hiring system!

          • Yeah. Get through the screening by non-technical recruiters so you can reach the technical interviews.

            My first tech job was along those lines. An HR guy who thought I wasn't technical enough for what was entry level consumer tech support. Given this was in the 90s, that I was an experienced BSD user who dabbled in coding should have been a hint.

            Got the job. Climbed the ladder.

      • Just remember to click yes on all requirements even if you don't actually have them

        I was encouraged to do that by advisers at the job centre (this is in the UK). When I got to an interview, the results were embarrassing, to say the least, because I had to admit that I had lied. Some people might be able to blag their way into a job. I have met some of them. Needless to say, they did not last long once their incompetence was revealed. But before that, they wasted everybody's time, and cost a great deal of money.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Let us know how well that works out [ifunny.co].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      Was the consequence that employers couldn't find qualified applicants? If the answer is no, then there isn't a problem. Yes, that's harsh to hear, but the truth of the matter is that for every open position you can expect to get far more applications than you could ever give serious consideration to.

      Yep. That's what automated systems are for, to cut down the flood of applicants to a reasonable level.

      In truth, the automated systems are little more than key-word searches that reject the applicants that failed to include the magic word. You can have all the skills needed, but if the search term is "Linux experience" and your resume says how much experience you have writing packages for Debian and Ubuntu, you lose out .

    • The answer is quite often "yes", that's why employers are complaining about not being able to find qualified candidates even as large numbers of qualified candidates complain they can't even get their resume looked at.

      The software just isn't good enough at parsing natural language to extract the information it needs from the text of the resume. Either better natural-language parsing algorithms are needed, or companies need to shift from looking at resumes to providing an application form with a list of what

    • The problem the op states is the one I learned jumping around jobs for 20 years. You submit a digital resume, no matter how well written it is, your not getting the job. It will get filtered out with a lot of the other trash either because the settings are wrong, or the HR guy skipped it on accident etc. Hell, those "fortune 500" company's they talk about, its a true nightmare if you have multiple locations everywhere. Store directors just get a list of stuff summitted to their website within x range

  • Corporations don't care so long as they have people and don't have to pay them very much. If there is mass poverty but they save a buck then it's all gravy.

    • According to the story, it does matter to some of these companies, because the decision-makers don't know what to do instead of using the software, so they're just short people.

      Perhaps after buying the software, they no longer require managers to have hiring experience?

      They're losing a buck, not saving one, and they know it. But fixing the problem itself requires work. And it would be additional work for somebody. Or they could try to hire somebody to do it, but... see step 1.

  • So what? (Score:3)

    by Jack9 ( 11421 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @12:59PM (#61769175)

    > Such software is used by employers to filter job applicants, but is mistakenly rejecting millions of viable candidates,

    The US Army selection criteria for who can run around and fire a rifle also, routinely, rejects viable candidates.

    Regardless if software or bad interview techniques or biased interviewers are to blame, "viable candidates" is subjective criteria in some form.
    A company wants to hire people and use a system to do so, they have a system to tackle their problem.
    The job market isn't a fair lottery system.
    If they aren't getting the results they want, they will change.

    • If they aren't getting the results they want, they will change.

      Employers have been whining they can't find people to fill their job openings since the mid-80s. I have newspaper articles I kept from that time saying as much.

      Let us know when companies are going to change.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jack9 ( 11421 )

        > Employers have been whining they can't find people to fill their job openings since the mid-80s

        Almost all Company press releases and statements are toward a goal. What people think they hear and what companies want are wildly different things.
        Universally, in the US, "can't fill jobs" is a convenient excuse to keep goods at a high cost.
        The companies that are actually using some sort of automated system to filter people aren't the same ones who are complaining about "can't find people".
        It's not like com

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Not just subjective but how does this study know they were "viable" in the first place? Did they test them, and for what?

    • The US Army selection criteria for who can run around and fire a rifle also, routinely, rejects viable candidates.

      That's one difference between the US Army and many other armies; they don't have any jobs at all for people who are only qualified to "run around and fire a rifle."

      • Actually 10% of the US Army positions are for "people that are qualified to run around and fire a rifle." The other 90% is logistical support.

  • Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @01:06PM (#61769203) Homepage

    A lot of automated hiring is there to mitigate both real and perceived discrimination. However, it replaces it with different discrimination.

    A human hiring manager will impose their own prejudices on candidates. However, they might see potential in someone who doesn't, on paper, have qualifications for a particular job, though.

    Software doesn't spot those things in people. If the job spec says, "doctorate in social media management" or "certified in Imagineering", it will reject people without those.

    It's actually rather easy to construct the job requirements to impose discrimination, and rather hard to construct them to find "gems in the rough".

    • Well not just discrimination, but the consequences of getting things wrong. Gotta keep those workplace shootings down.

    • If you are talking about racial and sexual discrimination, there is no evidence that automated hiring stops that, and plenty of evidence that it does the complete opposite.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Software doesn't spot those things in people. If the job spec says, "doctorate in social media management" or "certified in Imagineering", it will reject people without those.

      Indeed. Your CV could include "I wrote the most popular open source Social Media management tool in use worldwide, with deployments at tens of thousands of companies" and because you didn't include the word 'Doctorate' or 'PhD' you're not considered.

      Even at a more basic level, I got rejected for one job because my CV didn't include a technology that wasn't even on the job advert. After following up with the recruitment agency I pointed out to them that if I listed every technology I've used, configured, pro

      • Exactly.

        Admittedly my team is small, but I would always rather read every single application myself than outsource it, even just to HR.

        Some of the best people I've hired would have immediately failed any automated or HR screening. If you are interested in people with diverse life skills, a range of experience - even those who don't have a CS degree but are really active in open source projects - there is just no shortcut.

  • TALEO is always a bad sign (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cryptimus ( 243846 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @01:07PM (#61769207) Homepage

    I tend to reject employers using the TALEO system. It's a clear sign they don't care about the candidate experience which means they don't care about the employee experience and they'll be a bad employer.

    Simple, really.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Taleo is bad. But if you really want to deter candidates, go with Workday.

      SuccessFactors isn't great either. I'm still trying to work out why all HR recruitment platforms are utterly shite.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        Because HR is terribly bureaucratic by its nature. So the person picking the software won't be using it. The person customizing the software will take a list of bullet points from the executive and build them as cheaply as possible. Anyone that actually uses the software won't be in the loop. And it is a cost center so add that to the list of reasons that HR software is terrible.

  • It's HR that's the issue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cryptimus ( 243846 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @01:13PM (#61769227) Homepage

    The fundamental problem here is that HR are a bunch of talentless, lazy wastes of space.

    If they got off their asses and actually did their fucking job instead of farming it out to machines and then going to lunch, companies might actually hire the competent workers they're looking for.

    • Re:It's HR that's the issue (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pablo_max ( 626328 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @02:38PM (#61769471)

      Do you believe that people in HR are farming their own jobs out to machines?
      While I have never worked in HR, I do know several who do.. your assertion seems quite ridiculous. HR workers are just as concerned for their own jobs being phased out as any other person.
      That stuff comes from the top down.
      Additionally, HR is given a specific list of requirements from the requesting hiring manager. HR does NOT come up with the list. They just deliver the ding dong that was ordered.

      • HR workers are just as concerned for their own jobs being phased out as any other person. That stuff comes from the top down. Additionally, HR is given a specific list of requirements from the requesting hiring manager.

        With all due respect, I can disprove that with 2 words. Activision Blizzard. Did any of the HR that discarded those complaints get fired? Nope. Did the head of Blizzard? Yep.

    • The fundamental problem here is that HR are a bunch of talentless, lazy wastes of space.

      The real problem is that the main job of HR departments is to 1) Protect the company from the employee 2) administer benefits 3) fire people and 4) hire people

      They're often quite good at at least 2 of the first 3. And the managers don't care if they're good at 3, as long as they don't have to do it themselves and haven't been shot by a disgruntled former employee yet. So they can achieve a high 75% internal satisfaction rate even if they absolutely suck at hiring. And even if they outsourced benefits manage

  • The majority of the emails I get from recruiters are for jobs totally irrelevant to my skill set. They glom onto one word in my resumé and don’t seem to understand that the same word is used for different skill sets in totally different fields.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Not only that. "Your CV said you did Java programming!"

      Yes, that is correct. Until 2003. Whatever makes you think I could even do that job now, let alone be looking for one.

  • as long as they end up hiring someone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nerdonamotorcycle ( 710980 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @01:27PM (#61769285)

    then the system is working as designed. To the employer, it doesn't matter if the system ends up rejecting viable candidates, including the candidate who might be a better fit or even the best fit for the role, as long as they end up hiring *someone* who's reasonably good enough at the job. They don't have to hire "Mr./Ms. Perfect", they just have to hire "Mr./Ms. Good Enough." Meanwhile every job posting attracts so many resume submissions that no reasonable number of humans could possibly read them all. Many of them are horribly low-quality and the applicant isn't anywhere near a fit for the role that's advertised. (Likely a product of requirements that people apply to n jobs a week to qualify for collecting unemployment, plus unethical "body shop" third-party recruiters who shotgun resumes at any open role.)

    And that's before we get into the fact that for many advertised jobs, maybe even most, the company has no intention of hiring anyone who applies via the ad.

    • In many cases, there's already an "heir apparent" via an internal hire or a network-referral ("Hey, my friend at OtherCompany does this kind of work, wanna look at his resume?") but the job has to be advertised for compliance reasons.
    • In some cases, the role remains vacant permanently. I've seen situations where a company tries to keep overworked staff from leaving by reassuring them that they're trying to hire more people to handle the workload, but they plainly don't have any intention of actually hiring anyone.
    • Advertising the job and "failing" to find a suitable candidate is a step along the path to "proving" that they "can't find anybody" and thus justifying an H1B hire.
    • This is almost nonexistent nowadays, but employers sometimes used to advertise jobs as a means of collecting resumes and gauging the talent pool. Nowadays, of course, this information is much more public via sites like LinkedIn, Monster, etc.

    • They don't have to hire "Mr./Ms. Perfect", they just have to hire "Mr./Ms. Good Enough."

      This is the main point. If a job has loads of applicants, managers simply don't have the time to examine all of the applications in detail, and more importantly, they probably would not get a better result, even if they did take that effort.

      One thing that was drummed into me with writing a CV is that you stick to the formula, and keep it brief, or your application will be binned in seconds. The fact that a computer algorithm is doing the binning does not make much difference. There has to be some kind of tr

      • Agree. "They don't have to hire "Mr./Ms. Perfect", they just have to hire "Mr./Ms. Good Enough.""

        One of the best job advice I got was that CV/Resume does not get you the job, it is to get you an interview. So hit the items in job description, but don't go overboard and don't dilute it with non-relevant experience.

  • Why should I like this world?

  • I've been on the receiving end of resumes, and it surprised me that when we asked for developers with Pascal and C experience (because we used both in our codebase), I still received resumes missing one of the languages. No it's not a deal breaker, but there were enough applicants who had both languages that it meant we could filter out 75% of the applicants. There was also someone who was a greeter at a restaurant, with their Grade 10 in Piano. Impressive, but not *really* applicable to a software developm

    • Great point

      If you have a good network and a good reputation, you should really never have to go through this process at all - people will want you to work for them, and they will create roles accordingly.

  • It's sad but you either need to lie and say you have 10yrs experience with Windows 11 or your resume doesn't reach HR. Personally I haven't had to resort to cold calls with my CV in quite some time so I have been lucky with name hires.

  • There is also statistics. If you have a lot of applicants and you have some 'source' say statistical data which says that the green little men are on average a lot better at the task than the blue little men, you can use this to do some quick sorting. It's pragmatic. You accept that your algorithm makes mistakes.

    there are of course complications. the rule may be wrong. The rule may be right but just because of that the good greens get depleted and you are better of by checking the blues. But more importantl

  • Bots don't understand IT and the real world? Who knew

  • Too much (Score:3)

    by stinkydog ( 191778 ) <sd@s t r angedog.net> on Monday September 06, 2021 @05:51PM (#61769973) Homepage

    I was auto rejected by P&G for a senior level IT architect position. The reason (I knew some HR folks their and discovered)I had to much experience. Some sort of age discrimination protocol I guess. Literally, my 20 years of progressive IT experience was to much and the filter cut me from the pool. Filters can be another word for discrimination and even after I hacked out some experience to meet their criteria, to old seemed like the reason I did not advance. Perhaps not a common boat, but I'm sure a few of you are in it.

    -SD

  • Too many applicants (Score:3)

    by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Monday September 06, 2021 @07:51PM (#61770195)
    One root problem is that it has become too easy to apply for a job. Candidates no longer need to print and mail applications and resumes - so rather than applying to a handful of jobs, they can apply to hundreds.

    This results in such a flood of applicants that the hiring manager can't read them all - remember that people generally hire because the workforce is already too busy.

    Even if the hiring manager does try to read the applications they will find a seemingly endless stream of nearly identical applicants claiming exactly the skills requested. Interviews will then indicate (at least in my experience) that a significant number of candidates outright lie about their qualifications. Things like claiming FPGA firmware expertise when they have never written any firmware, or analog electronics expertise when they can't describe the behavior of a RC circuit. The problem is that there are no consequences for a candidate outright lying on a resume.

    I can see hiring managers resorting to automated measures out of desperation, and a lack of any viable alternative. That of course false as above - as it becomes a test of candidates ability to choose the exact words the automated system is looking for.

    So often it falls back to "knowing someone" - which of course opens the door to a wide range of discriminatory and illegal practices.
  • When I was job shopping during the pandemic, I applied through ZipRecruiter and some other sites. What was absolutely horrific was how terrible this software is. You apply for something skilled and rather specific, like "OB/GYN" or "pediatrician." ZipRecruiter spams you with all sorts of obviously irrelevant stuff. To use that example, I was getting "matches" for everything from textbook reviewer to medical assistance to nursing to dentistry and even more ridiculous. So when you hear the ZipRecruiter job t

  • You either get automated hiring systems which are going to algorithmically sort people dispassionately, but ostensibly without overt human bias, at least as far as we're able.

    Or, you get human hiring, in which case they may be racist, sexist, simply not like you, or want someone with bigger tits.

    You can't get the best of both. Sorry.

    • You either get automated hiring systems which are going to algorithmically sort people dispassionately, but ostensibly without overt human bias, at least as far as we're able.

      Or, you get human hiring, in which case they may be racist, sexist, simply not like you, or want someone with bigger tits.

      You can't get the best of both. Sorry.

      After the software filters the candidates, a human being needs to make the decision afterwards. So yeah, you get machine bias and human bias. I trust human beings more than machines.

      • You can argue with a human. You can predict and compensate for their bias. We're evolved for that kind of social interaction, we're incredibly good at it.

        You can't predict what an oversight in an algorithm's design might do, and they're deployed as barriers specifically so you CAN'T get around them.

        Damn right I trust a biased human over a dispassionate machine when it comes to social interactions.

  • Include a line at the end of your resume: "I am familiar with or have read about the following:", then list every "hot-button" program you can think of. Format that line with text color the same as the background color (usually white) and set the size to 0 point font. If that doesn't work, make it the smallest point size of the smallest font you have. The goal is to have all those products listed in the electronic copy of resume but not visible on a printed copy.

    The resume scanners will find all the keywords it was looking for and not send you to the "ignore" pile. Now at least your foot is in the door. NOTE: If you post a resume to one of the public resume sites be prepared for every lame headhunter to be sending you job listing at least once a day. And they never stop. Ever. Even after 15 years of no reply, they're still doing it.

  • HR not doing it's job. (Score:3)

    by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @09:03AM (#61771385) Journal
    The HR department doesn't want to do it's job so they got this software and now it takes months to hire anyone because HR doesn't understand the requirements and doesn't understand the software.

    HR drones have no idea what skills jobs require, even their own jobs. They are too busy pushing wokeism, creating special committees, and coming up with "benefits" that no one can use (like the company I worked at that had a ping-pong table that no dared use) to show how progressive an employer they are, not to mention to lazy, to actually read resumes. Instead, they get this software which reads the resumes for them. So, they put in all the requirements that have been sent to them by the hiring manager. They receive something like this:

    Systems engineer with about 8 years experience. Needs to have experience with our DevOps tools (Splunk, Jenkins, Puppet, Chef, Go), CI/CD, and an understanding of our preferred development environment (Java, SpringBoot,AWS).

    And, what they put into the requirements and the resume scanning software is:

    Key Word: Engineer
    Key Word: DevOps
    Key Word: Splunk ; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: Jenkins; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: Puppet; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: Chef; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: Go; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: CI/CD; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: Java; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: Springboot; Required: 8 years
    Key Word: AWS; Required: 8 years

    The end result is that no candidate makes it through the filters. If one is lucky, the HR team will then go back to the hiring manager and ask what is optional and what the minimum experience is for each of the those.

    By this time, 4 months have gone by, no "qualified" candidates have been found and the position is in danger of being eliminated because "We have done OK without it. We can save money and headcount."

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close