Over the past couple of months, I have embarked on a journey. A journey of discovery, of enlightenment, of questions and answers and a journey of resolution. No, it wasn’t one of those tedious self-help guru workshop nor a blissful return to nature or some other such folly. It was a lot closer to home and far, far more eye opening.
The truth is, I have been looking for a part-time or temp or contract role to supplement my focus on the consulting, writing and speaking that my business has evolved into. Heck, I would even consider something more substantial and full-time IF the right role came across my desk.
This has led me to fire off resumes to different employers, recruiters and others in the hope of gaining a look in to what roles may be relevant at that time. It is this activity that has given me in equal parts a very perplexing and interesting insight into not only how candidates are treated, but where the modern-day recruitment practices are situated.
Both give me little hope for the future.
Anyone who has read previous posts of mine know how critical I am of the recruitment industry and of recruitment practice. It is not until one is subjected to these practices, though, that the full extent of the various issues within it become frighteningly clear. The key issue above all else is centered around candidates and the way they are treated within a given hiring process. Some time ago I wrote a piece looking at the rec-to-rec industry. This time, however, I will give them a rest and concentrate on others.
Now, for this post, I want to return to a pet hate and look at, more importantly, where it leads to and why it is a crock. That pet hate is, of course, keyword matching. The views I have on this practice are contained within this blog and have been a constant throughout my posting. For perspective, the first contact a recruiter / HR / anyone else has with a candidate is with their resume. If the sum-total of the (as recruiter / HR / other) consideration of that candidate is to line up the resume with the Position Description and tick off similarities (or, worse still, use an ATS – mentioned below – or other automated tools), then that is LAZY! Don’t know how much more clear I can make it. It is oft-repeated by myself and others, yet the predilection for using it is increasing – not decreasing! Which means it is becoming a preferred sourcing tool AND that decisions are being made on this basis only.