As a manager and executive over the past twenty years I have read thousands of resumes, looked at countless online resources, and hired hundreds of people to work for me, my fellow executives or for others in the organization. Unsurprisingly, I get a lot of people coming my way looking for work. I am, however, surprised at how often their “hiring persona” is in shambles. If you want your best foot forward in the hiring process you must be prepared with sharpened tools from both the offline and online worlds.
What is one’s “hiring persona”? It used to be your resume, your interviews and any references you provided. Today it is your resume, anything that can be found about you online, your interviews and the backdoor references that are readily found using online tools.
Your online professional persona means a lot these days. It may be how you are found in the first place. Or it may be where your would-be recruiter or hiring manager stops looking at you and moves on to the next candidate. Bottom line: you should know what it is. Google yourself.
Some things you cannot control, such as old, cached company web bios or press releases (for you execs out there), articles about you or work you have done, and public records (e.g. court records). If there are questionable items, the best defense is a good offense. Be prepared to address these items up front. Do not take the chance that no one will ask. If they call you on it, you will be on the defensive and will look like you’re on the defensive. That is tough to overcome. If you lead with it you get to control the conversation and can get past it with more aplomb.
Every recruiter uses LinkedinThen there are things you can control. Every recruiter uses Linkedin. We go there to do primary research (who is the CFO of company XYZ), to find back-door references or to see how your online resume stacks up to your offline. If you are a business professional, you should be on Linkedin. Further, your Linkedin profile should match your resume. Less detail, but each job title, every company, the dates, etc. should all be there. Anything inconsistent will raise a flag. There are other professional networking sites but they are far less traveled. If you are on them, make them consistent with your Linkedin profile and your resume. There are also the Facebook/MySpace-like social sites. I will cover these with the following: Do not put anything a) incriminating, or b) idiotic out there. We have all read the horror stories, yet they keep on coming.
The resume is not new, but given how they have been around forever as the primary written record of your work, and their style and substance has been critiqued and analyzed ad nauseum, you would think people would take more care. Here is my short-list of tips and you can find many others online.
Overall, keep it tight and make sure it is a catalog of how you helped your companies create value.
If you don’t bother with the research, don’t waste the company's timeInterview prep is so easy these days. Take advantage of the wealth of online data surrounding most companies. For all but the most hidden companies you can readily find out what they do, who backed them, who is on the board, who the leaders are and what space they are in (which tells you who their competitors are). There are all sorts of information about what technology underlies the product and whether it’s cool or not. You get the idea. Show that you are truly interested and do your homework. The interviewers will immediately notice you did. They will also immediately notice if you did not. Those interviews are guaranteed to not go well. If you don’t bother with the research, don’t waste their time.
Dress appropriately. If you are an engineer, you know what that means. If you are any of the “professional” functions (finance, sales, HR, etc.) dress at or one level above your audience. Once again, research. If you are using a recruiter they should give you this information.
Get good sleep and be high energy. People gravitate to those with good energy. You can see it in any room full of people and the same holds for interviews.
Always understand the question. Let your interviewer complete their question (no jumping the gun). Then pause. Consider the question. The pause lets them know you are giving your answer due thought and it will emphasize your words when you speak. Then be succinct. Interviews can be nerve-wracking and some people handle (or don't handle) nerves by over-communicating. Avoid this by applying energy towards economy with your communication.
Look them in the eye when talking.
Don’t blow the deal during the “casual conversation” that you have at the start and end of your interview. Be friendly but don’t relax too much. Every word is being evaluated. I have given many interviews where the candidate put themselves out of contention before we got through the first five minutes.
I like to see references from two bosses, one peer and one person who reported to you (if you are a manager). Bring good ones, but expect that they won’t be the only ones used. Even if you don’t have your own Linkedin profile, it is very easy to find others on Linkedin from your past companies and even in your very department. There is every chance that your old managers will be contacted. You might want to prepare your managers from the past half-dozen or so years. It is good to keep them in the loop on your job search regardless, as they may be able to help you within their own networks. This will also prepare them should they get that surprise call.
That is my overview of the new world of recruiting. There are many articles out there with different insights and angles, but this is one executive-turned-recruiter's opinion and I hope you find it useful. Recruiters and hiring managers are fully wired and you should be as well. Use all of this data and technology to your advantage and you will be one step ahead of the competition for your next job.
A friend of mine had a professional resume writer rework his resume. One comment was to leave out anything like cum laude or summa cum laude, because web filters will most likely filter it out for a certain reason.
I know of MANY people who badmouth others to make themselves look better or are just malicious. Some individuals do it to get business for their firms. Some professions are worse than others. Recruiters should not solicit backdoor opinions (most are unfounded, untruthful, and usually slanderous). It is totally wasted time. By not hiring someone because of lies, the company loses. But if this is how companies make decisions, I would not want to work for them.
Thanks John for your views from the "other side" as a recruiter. For most of us who are less acquainted with the process of getting a new job, your obvious professional observations might be overlooked. The famous story about the shoemaker not taking care of his own. Keep writing in this very informative form, you have a gift for it.
John - greetings from a fellow Fuqua alum, I was laid off from an IT Director level position last month so I've been working a lot with recruiters and with my resume lately. I don't think there is a clear consensus on this point. You are absolutely correct that the one page resume does not deliver enough information to make a full assessment of the candidate, but the reason they are created is to focus the reader on the most critical information in order to pass an initial screening. That is, because there are so many competitors for each position, the one pager is designed to help the candidate survive the initial screen and motivate interest in a follow-up. The advantage of a short resume is that it can convey enough information to hit the relevant keywords but limit the extraneous information that may be used as a filter to the no pile.
My approach has been to use the 1 page resume when I'm just some random person replying to a job posting. I start with the 2 page resume when I'm leveraging a personal contact or have some other connection which replaces the initial screening process.
Fair enough. Sorry to hear about that. Best of luck to you out there...
I respectfully disagree with you on the "axe to grind" being rare. I have seen it happen several times over the past few years. I don't know why there seems to be an increase in these unethical "references", but they are occuring.
Thank you for your very insightful article. But I think that you're being a bit naive and are missing important points about back door references that merit further comment.
Although LinkedIn is a great tool which makes it easy to identify back door references, these back door references largely can operate with impunity, essentially eliminating the cost of settling old scores, promulgating their own agenda or simply being wrong. Business is often about dealing with conflicts constructively and timely decisions are rarely made in consensus. Invariably, there are those that see winners and losers in every decision because they are passed over for promotion, their plans are shot down, etc. etc.
In my own case, I was "torpedoed" by a back door reference for a job that I really wanted a few years ago. It was an "A" grade assignment that was highly competitive. I made the final slate of 3 candidates and was suddenly told that the board did not want to proceed. The reasons given did not add up, but I remained in contact with the recruiter and two of the board members.
A few years later, one of the board members (let’s call him John) and I had a chance meeting at conference and were having a nice conversation when an old colleague (let’s call him Ralph, who was now a "Highly respected VC") approached us, so we added him to our conversation. After I introduced Ralph, the board member said "I know your name from somewhere, but I just can't place it" so we explored this for a few minutes and I thought I saw a "light bulb" go on. John said "Ralph, you and Scott must have worked together when the company was being restructured, tell me the story of the turnaround." Ralph was visibly flushed, but provided a pretty accurate account of what happened. After a few more minutes, cards were exchanged and Ralph moved on.
John turned to me and said "Scott, we did you a terrible disservice a few years ago. Ralph provided the recruiter with a blind reference on you that was just damning, and gave us the names of a few friends to back it up....but right in front of you, he just changed his version of the story so that it was probably 90% matched up with yours. I am sorry."
I understand your example, but the fact is, back door reference checking happens regardless – it just happens more easily now with a tool like Linkedin. The "counter-naiveté" position would be that of an applicant expecting the company/recruiter to take their given references at face value. I don’t know about you, but I have never had a candidate intentionally give me bad references when it came to that point in the hiring process. They always give the three best from their professional career. Their cheerleaders – those who they have carefully cultivated and trust to give a 100% positive spin on the candidate. Hiring managers (CEO and Board included) and recruiters know this and that is what drives them to the “back door” references. So neither side of this is perfect, but the hiring company does deserve to get as complete a picture as possible of a candidate.
Another point I would make is that few people in business have an axe to grind so what you note is, happily, rare. The better recruiters will look for a second source on negative feedback to confirm anything blatently negative or discordant with what they saw. And you will recall from the blog post that one of my points was that, armed with the knowledge that back door reference checking happens, all job seekers should "innoculate" themselves by keeping in touch with past managers or others likely to be hit up for references. Thanks for your comment.
Comments