Last week’s letter from Kayla Pollock, an undergraduate student from Adelphi University, was not only accurate in its portrayal of the current state of employment searches but struck a nerve. I am an applicant at the opposite end of the age spectrum from Kayla. Today’s uber-technical, science-based approach to hiring practiced by most major companies removes all interpersonal communication and leads to the potential for an individual better equipped to “game the system” to “win the interview.”
I applaud Kayla for seeing the flaws in the process at such a premature stage in her budding career but feel awful that she is now faced with this daunting task. Previously, I believed the “new paradigm” for employment was benefitting millennials and Gen-Xers, but her perception proves me wrong.
I feel her pain. I am a seasoned client service professional who was subject to a reduction in force by an S&P 500 company in my mid-50s. The use of algorithms searching for buzzwords in a resume or cover letter is patently true (and often unfair). Without these necessary terms or talents directly found in your work history, there is no chance to advance to the interview stage. Maybe the generic term of “human resources” for the department responsible for hiring qualified individuals should be amended to “inhuman”. Wouldn’t this be obvious if a computer now does the work of a professional?
Networking used to involve using your public speaking skills to advance your career to colleagues, peers and superiors when looking for upward mobility or opening that first door. Having a solid resume that described your work history, tasks performed and level of proficiency in various areas was enough to get you in front of the right people. Presenting your case in-person at the same time never hurt. That is virtually impossible today.
I recently attended a job seminar for over-50-year-olds admonishing the old practice. The counselor instructed job candidates to review the job qualification for each position and create a resume, including buzzwords found in the job description, catering to each specific posting. In other words, one resume is no longer useful. If you apply for 100 jobs expect to create 100 different resumes. Think of how time consuming this is much less impractical.
In the “old days,” hours of networking could generate an infinite number of contacts with which to pass along that single resume that succinctly told your story. A story that was accurate, insightful and gave a true picture of what you had to offer.
With the new system of automated resume review, candidates following this advice simply provide the employer with what they want to hear. What happens when an interview is forthcoming? Do you resort to “being yourself”? If so, you are probably summarily dismissed. If you parrot the surrogate resume, you are either fooling yourself or the prospective employer. Another issue, which is not affecting Kayla, is the potential for age discrimination. Should you add employment and graduation dates to your resume; don’t think for a minute that the algorithm isn’t capable of that computation. Advantage millennial over experienced dinosaur.
Don’t get me wrong, I have worked with computer technology for my entire career. It has definitely improved our business skills and efficiency. But there are some things best left to human nature and “gut instinct.” These are characteristics that no algorithm is capable of infusing into the selection criteria. As an example, I offer the following personal anecdote.
As Kayla described, I input my resume and cover letter into one particular company’s internet kiosk for review. Within approximately 15 minutes, an email was received that the information had been received and would be reviewed for correlation to the position. Two hours later another email arrived in my inbox thanking me for my interest but politely stating I was not a fit for the opportunity. Is it not physically impossible for that information to move from kiosk to human eyes to supervisory decision in that short period of time? Computer technology at its best, interpersonal communication skills at its worst.
At its heart, the new practice of technology-oriented employment selection will hurt corporate America. Instead of finding the best man or woman for the job, it will find the best “gamers.” Ultimately, those chosen will show their true colors when it comes to loyalty. At the first chance to increase their salary or be poached away, they will “game” someone else. That may be in three months or three years, but the resources in benefits, training and client satisfaction the company instilled in the individual are lost with no quantifiable return (and too often critical harm). Maybe the time, effort and money would have been better spent sitting down and discussing how each individual candidate best meets the goals of the job. Then again the algorithm can simply find the next best “gamer.” Good luck.
Fare thee well, Kayla. At least you were not given the following advice which may be even more impetuous than an algorithm. Should you get an interview and you have a salt and pepper coiffure, color your hair to hide the grey. If lucky enough, you get the job. When you show up on day one two weeks later with some flecks of grey, now who “gamed” who?
Fortunately for me, I just completed two interviews for a local position the old-fashioned way — answering a print ad through the mail and using my interpersonal communication skills to justify my qualifications for the position. Regardless of the outcome, it restored my faith that the right opportunity will come my way sans algorithm.
Thomas J. Winters, Sr.
Mineola
