The idea of matching someone’s skills and experience on a resume to a
job description consisting of an arbitrary list of skills and
experiences seems rather archaic to me. Some people actually defend
doing this faster as a major advance in modern HR practices.
(Note: due to the interest in this topic I've scheduled a live webcast on February 28th
to discuss alternatives to resumes. One idea - a performance-based
segment as part of a LinkedIn profile. Add your ideas below.)
In a recent post
I suggested that a better first step was a candidate being referred to a
recruiter or hiring manager by someone already in the company, a
vendor, a customer, or someone who can personally vouch for the
job-seeker based on the person's past performance. This is equivalent to
using the company employee referral program to proactively seek out
more top performers. Most companies recognize this as one of their best
sources for new talent and the primary reason why referral programs are
being expanded using tools like LinkedIn. Promoting people through
internal mobility is also based on the tried and true concept that
performance is more important than experience.
In my new book
I suggest that the process used for internal promotions represents a
good model for finding and hiring people from the outside. Adopting this
approach involves eliminating traditional skills-infested job
descriptions, replacing them with performance profiles, and
reconfiguring the box-checking first step.
Due to the “radical”
nature of this proposal I asked David Goldstein a senior attorney with
Littler Mendelson, a highly respected U.S. labor law firm, for his legal
perspective. His white paper is now available. Here’s his opening statement:
Because
the Performance-based Hiring system does differ from traditional
recruiting and hiring processes, questions arise as to whether employers
can adopt Performance-based Hiring and still comply with the complex
array of statutes, regulations, and common law principals that regulate
the workplace. The answer is yes.
In particular:
A
properly prepared performance profile can identify and document the
essential functions of a job better than traditional position
descriptions, facilitating the reasonable accommodation of disabilities
and making it easier to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
and similar laws.
In the book I also suggested that the
standard “submit resume and box-check skills” approach should be
replaced by an initial matching process that didn't inadvertently
eliminate fully-qualifed people. One idea was to have candidates submit a
one-page summary of two accomplishments most comparable to the real
requirements of the job. Since the job postings I recommend minimize
skills and emphasize opportunities and challenges (sample),
this is pretty straight-forward. For example if you’re hiring a
maintenance supervisor to minimize machine downtime and upgrade the
team, ask all applicants to describe something they’ve done in each area
as the first step. This will minimize the pool of unqualified people
from applying and broaden the pool of the most qualified who might have a
different mix of skills and experiences. David gave a legal thumbs-up
to both the creative advertising idea and the alternate approach for
applying.
Coincidently, in the past few days two different
starts-up companies approached me to consider being on their advisory
boards. Both had far different and unique ideas on how to broaden the
pool of potential candidates by breaking the same nonsensical
skills-matching process described here. The common idea: the best people
aren’t interested in lateral transfers, the best people often have a
different skill-set, and these same people aren’t interested in enduring
the insensitive application process. Excluding the most talented people
from consideration when hiring from the outside never made sense me.
It's exciting to see some technical advances being proposed to now do
this at scale.
If you follow my posts
you know I’m on a quest to change the focus on finding and hiring
people to one based on their actual performance – they’re ability to
deliver comparable results. It’s what people have accomplished with
their skills and experiences that matters, not their accumulation. This
opens up the door to a whole new pool of more diverse, younger, older,
military veterans, displaced workers and the physically challenged. We
don’t have as big a skills gap as the national media contends, we have a
bigger thinking gap.
Original Article : https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130221192310-15454-why-we-should-ban-resumes?_mSplash=1&sessionid=0UCnpc6JHY-Rkwe99FK0
Why we should ban resumes!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment