How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

Careers

What Recruiters Look At During The 6 Seconds They Spend On Your Resume
Vivian Giang | Apr. 9, 2012, 12:04 PM |
Recommend 9k Share 7,839 Tweet 5,480

934,085 |
654

155
AA

Although we may never know why we didn't get chosen for a job interview, a recent study is shedding some light on recruiters' decision-making behavior. According to TheLadders research, recruiters spend an average of "six seconds before they make the initial 'fit or no fit' decision" on candidates. The study used a scientific technique called eye tracking on 30 professional recruiters and examined their eye movements during a 10-week period to "record and analyze where and how long someone focuses when digesting a piece of information or completing a task." In the short time that they spend with your resume, the study showed recruiters will look at your name, current title and company, current position start and end dates, previous title and company, previous position start and end dates, and education. The two resumes below include a heat map of recruiters' eye movements. The one on the right was looked at more thoroughly than the one of the left because of its clear and concise format:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 1 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

TheLadders

With such critical time constraints, you should make it easier for recruiters to find pertinent information by creating a resume with a clear visual hierarchy and don't include distracting visuals since "such visual elements reduced recruiters analytical capability and hampered decision-making" and kept them from "locating the most relevant information, like skills and experience."
NOW READ: 11 things you should never include on your resume>

Please follow Careers on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow Vivian Giang on Twitter. Ask Vivian A Question > Tags: Resumes, Career, Resume, TheLadders.com, Recruiters, Human Resources, Interview, Job Hunting | Get Alerts for these topics
Choose an industry to view real-time news organized from over 25,000 sources... Newscircles are a quick, convenient way to create and publish your own customized news portals...

Discover the best free real-time news, networking and information portal on the web...

Recession or not, penny stocks are the secret to being able to afford anything you want...

Share:

Short URL

http://read.bi/Huy8hh

Twitter Newsletter

Facebook

Buzz

Digg

StumbleUpon

Reddit

LinkedIn

Email

Embed

Alerts

TheLadders
Summary

Blackboard Home

TheLadders is a subscription based job search and recruiting site for all professional job seekers. It is based in New York.
More

Vivian Giang is a reporter at Business Insider. Contact: e-mail: vgiang@businessinsider.com AIM: viviantgiang Work Phone: 646.376.6079 Subscribe to her RSS feed | twitter feed

Ask Vivian a Question Recent Posts

What Your Thank You Letter ... This Is How You Get Fired B... Likeable Bosses Need A 'Bad...

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 2 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

The Water Cooler

155 Comments

Abbey Sheridan on Apr 9, 5:00 PM said: "The one on the right was looked at more thoroughly than the one of the left because of its clear and concise format." Vivian, as a professional executive search consultant, I have to ask how the Ladders reached this conclusion, please..?

52

27

Flag as Offensive

Most recruiters don't spend much time looking at a resume (primarily due to the sheer volume of resumes and applications received with the advent of recruitment technology). But spending more time looking at a resume doesn't naturally correlate with how engaging and interesting a resume is. The resume on the right is far harder to read - at first glance, there's too much information in the first few sentences/ paragraphs to absorb in 7 seconds - and therefore I might have spent more time looking at the resume on the right merely to digest the same amount of information contained in the resume on the left.

Reply Vivian Giang on Apr 9, 5:17 PM said: @Abbey Sheridan: Hi Abbey. Here's what the study says: "This groundbreaking research employed a scientific technique called eye tracking a technologically advanced assessment of eye movement that records and analyzes where and how long a person focuses when digesting information or completing activities. The study gauged specific behaviors of actual recruiters as they performed online tasks, including resume and candidate profile reviews."

15

15

Flag as Offensive

Reply Ryan (URL) on Apr 10, 12:35 AM said: @Vivian Giang: Yes this is an unfortunate truth in the industry. 6 seconds is an outrageously short time period, and making a decision on 'facts' gathered in 6 seconds is just crazy. For most recruiters it is a volume game and that is why paper resums are going to be a thing of the past.

22

Flag as Offensive

Reply Paul Jacinto on Apr 10, 2:04 AM said: @Abbey Sheridan: @Abbey Sheridan: Hi Abbey, I'm an executive search consultant as well, have been for 6 years.

27

Flag as Offensive

The main difference between the left and right CVs, even if having the same content, is that the right one has the right form--breaking down the information into segments using block breaks which allows for easier scanning. The left one has a flowing format, which if I were given a 7-second take on each of the CVs I'd definitely feel as if the first one was endless. The 7-seconds should be considered here--recruiters usually take more time and care in looking at CVs EXCEPT in cases of volume hires where time 'efficiency' plays more weight. @Time Woods: In my experience, you have a better chance with Executive Search Recruiters since they're least likely barraged with a ton of CVs, given that the process is more on targeted selection rather than a hit-and-miss approach of traditional recruiting which uses job ads that anyone can respond to. So it means that more time CAN be devoted in browsing via CVs. And if I were a hiring manager, I'd go with smaller recruiting firms that can give more focus on my requirements. Plus, smaller firms means that they have lesser clients, hence broader talent pool to work with. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to work with a firm that poaches from their clients as well, as they most definitely can do it to me. This exercise is an AID at making your CV more appealing and informative when given a quick look. In today's competitive job market and rising unemployment, I believe that ANY advantage makes a huge difference hence I find the exercise rather interesting and valuable.

Reply Areyoukidding me on Apr 10, 8:52 AM said:

43

22

Flag as Offensive @Paul Jacinto: There is a difference between a CV and a Resume, they are not synonymous. CV is used in fields where research, projects, academics, teaching, publications and education are the experience. Much more space would be used in a CV to explain what the research was being used for, where the funding came from, who got it and what the outcome was, much different from a resume. It is mainly used to apply for grants and Fellowships. It often has information on it that is illegal to ask in the HR community. If your search firm calls your resume a CV then they are trying to use a BUZZ WORD that does not fit and that may be costing you opportunities because HR thinks you do not know what you are talking about. It is NOT up marketing to call your Resume a CV, it does not distinguish it, it does not make it better and it does not get you the interview UNLESS you are applying for a fellowship, grant or publication.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 3 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

Reply E Roley on Apr 10, 10:16 AM said:

30

Flag as Offensive @Abbey Sheridan: When speaking about the Ladders, I think of high priced scams for idiots. anyone who would actually pay for a job is out of thier minds and I would not hire anyone through that media. Depending upon the position, I look for content, realism, format and puncutation. period. just scanning a resume in just a few seconds, is not providing your client with the real services they hired you for in the first place. I do get a lot of complaints about it being a big hurry up and wait game. Perhaps instead, the recruiting world should approach this as, Let's understand what the client is really looking for in a candidate and then also, really read what is being presented in the form of a potential suitor for your client. Using the "super scan" method is more inefficient, does not provide your client with the best options and lulls recruiters in to a lowered standard.

Reply

Showing first 5 of 25 replies. View All

Tim Woods on Apr 9, 6:17 PM said:

71

56

Flag as Offensive Assuming that this article is true (and I have no reason to question its validity), then this proves an important fact -- recruiters don't spend nearly enough time looking for quality candidates. Considering that the average recruiter makes five figures on every placement s/he makes, sometimes I wonder why they deserve that money. This is especially true considering the fact that I have applied for countless jobs, included the key phrases they are looking for VERBATIM and still don't a second glance.

If I were a hiring manager (again), I would avoid using recruiters at all costs and rely on myself to source and staff my team whether that is by leveraging my own network or sourcing/reading resumes myself.

Reply Nihal on Apr 9, 7:44 PM said: @Tim Woods: Tim, actually most recruiters work on 100% commission and the staffing company typically take 65-75% of the profit per placement. So a $20K fee nets the recruiter about $6k which about $2-$3k goes toward his salary and the rest is commission.

24

11

Flag as Offensive

Also, the demand for hiring is so high, recruiters have to find an efficient way to go through all the resumes while carefully looking for key words, roles, and responsibilities that would perk a hiring manager's interest. In this market, it's more than just matching skills...it's really finding out what the candidate is looking for and matching the interests with the opportunity. And it's mainly passive candidates that are getting hired for perm position and not the unemployed ones so the strategy is different. Reason why all my clients are needing help is that they do not have the time and resources to dedicate for filling positions and are way too busy to wade through resumes, sell the opportunity, setup interviews and negotiate salary.

Reply Cary Wong on Apr 9, 7:48 PM said: @Tim Woods: @Tim

13

Flag as Offensive

I'm not sure what field you're in, but I specialize in the Information Technology sector. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to take a look at your resume and provide you with some feedback. cwong at true-source dot com

Reply Andrew Schneider on Apr 10, 11:45 AM said: @Tim Woods: As a recruiter I have a few comments...

23

Flag as Offensive

First as a recruiter there are certain things we can tell very quickly, such as your primary industry (financial clients want resources with financial experience) so I can very quickly see that by a cursory glance at your employers. We also know the there are lengths of employment our clients like, and specific years of experience they are looking for. All this information can be gathered in a quick 3 seconds by taking one look at a resume. Second, you assume it's easy/cheap to find good candidates. Job boards charge fees for access that would not be feasible to give every hiring manager, nor would it be a good use of your time to spend hours going through resumes. For every 10 people you call one calls back. Throw that on top of the fact that 9/10 resumes received from a job posting are even remotely applicable for the job, trust me you just want the menu, you don't want to be the butcher. Hiring managers demand very specific things from recruiters which establishes this sort of behavior. I'm sure if this study were done with hiring managers results would be pretty similar...

Reply

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 4 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

ITRecruiter on Apr 10, 1:12 PM said: @Tim Woods: @Tim "Considering that the average recruiter makes five figures on every placement s/he makes, sometimes I wonder why they deserve that money."

23

Flag as Offensive

Tim, I've been a recruiter for over 5 years now, and I spend much more time reviewing a resume than this article states. If I was going to just throw a guess out there, I'd say about 20-30 seconds, for those that are qualified. How does a recruiter know if someone's qualified? If they are looking for an Infrastructure Project Manager for example, they'll expect that type of candidate will apply. What the recruiter gets(that's me!) is 75% of applications that don't have the required experience whatsoever(retail manager, construction manager, the list goes on and on). Those resumes, I don't address because even though a candidate can click a button that says "apply now" and the job site sends their resume, I don't have a button to click that says "reject now" and would rather not reply than to craft an email that will take longer for me to write than it took for me to review the resume or the amount of time it took for that person to apply to the job. I've never worked with any recruiters that are making five figures on every placement. Are those people out there? Absolutely. They're doing executive searches and are putting in a lot of time screening and vetting candidates. I work primarily in contract and time is of essence. I might find the right candidate in my first call or it could take 70 calls. The great thing about talking to so many people, is that I can build a bench for future positions. If I don't fill that position I called you for, hopefully I can find something else for you. I have people that I've talked to for 5+ years that I've never placed. I'm sorry you haven't had the type of response from recruiters that you'd expect. I can make excuses until I'm blue in the face, but that probably won't change your opinion. Good luck in your search and I sincerely hope you find what your'e looking for.

Reply Another IT Recruiter on Apr 10, 5:08 PM said: @ITRecruiter: Tim Woods has not had the success with recruiters because of his attitude towards us. People like him do not see the value in working with us and we can usually tell that on the first call. There are enough engineers out there that value my help, and I would rather give them more than 6 seconds to review their resume.

21

Flag as Offensive

Reply

Showing first 5 of 17 replies. View All

Comment flagged as offensive. 7null on Apr 9, 9:06 PM said: the people looking at the left one must have been cockeyed ... why is there a heat map spot in the right margin? 33 0

Flag as Offensive

Reply Brian Smith on Apr 9, 9:21 PM said: @7null: That was when the recruiter dozed off.

51

Flag as Offensive

Reply d0ug on Apr 10, 12:26 PM said: @7null: The sensor recorded where they focused their eyes while thinking (digesting). If they are practicing a speed reading (glancing) technique, then the sensor will record little time spent on the actual information gathering process which is what most resume writers are concerned with. People gaze at all sorts of things while pondering a thought but that is not really important. "record and analyze where and how long someone focuses when digesting a piece of information or completing a task."

Flag as Offensive

Reply st8181 on Apr 9, 10:16 PM said:

31

Flag as Offensive To any job seekers reading this, you should understand that this just underscores how resumes are an entirely antiquated part of the hiring process. In the 1940s resumes may have been the best available option, but they just dont make sense anymore. I want less information, not more; it just has to be top-notch-intel. Between Linkedin, Facebook and Google, finding the details about candidates is easy. Job seekers must all be reading from the same book, because after you have read 100 they all start to look the same. There are so many Bachelors now that people are getting masters just to differentiate, a single letter on their resume: from B.A. to M.A. Its gotten crazy. I read that one study found 35% of resumes actually lie/embellish about education and training. More than a third?! What do I want to know? Show me that you are smart, that you can learn, and that youll get the job done. Dont tell me show me, I want evidence not pandering. In a nut shell, businesses and industries are changing so fast that more experience isnt necessarily a good thing. Often for skilled positions, if I see more than 5 years experience, I get worried that the skills wont be relevant. At the same time, I cant go to a client recommending a recent graduate who isnt an obvious hot shot. I need proof. Understand it from my perspective. My reputation is on the line, and if I dont make great placements reliably then Ill lose repeat business. I need to focus on placing candidates, not looking for customers because I pissed off my last customers. To my peers! A word to the wise: I gave up on resumes in January. I have had great results screening applicants www.cream.hr . I still collect resumes, but file them away and I just focus on reading the ones on the shortlist. At 6 seconds a resume, it isnt like I am reading them anyway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 5 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

Is using a screening test cold an impersonal? Sure. But when job seekers are applying to 300 jobs a week or more, and often arent even reading the job descriptions, there isnt much alternative.

Reply sharn cedar on Apr 10, 7:51 AM said:

31

21

Flag as Offensive @st8181: I had great luck applying to internal recruiters that work for the company. I had terrible luck applying with external recruiters for the reasons you mention. The external recruiters seem more interested in selling themselves to the client, and they are very discriminatory and ignorant. A lot of times they refuse to put up a good candidate for a job that matches simply because they have another candidate they are sending to that job, or they are trying to bait and switch you to a job you don't want. They are looking for the quick sell, the easy sell. The internal recruiter has a different motivation, and is much more willing to take the time to find a good candidate.

The external recruiter is like a used car dealer, the internal recruiter is like a person seeking to buy or sell a car. The external recruiter is a hustler, tends to lie to everyone, and is only interested in a quick turnaround for a quick buck. Slimy. Luckily, more and more businesses are dispensing with external recruiters. It is cheaper for them to hire one person in HR to read and scan resumes than to pay recruiter fees. You only have to hire about 5 or 6 employees a year to make a full-time in-house recruiter profitable. In those terms, each position would have 2 months of attention from an in-house recruiter, while the external body bagger might give a few hours to each placement at most. So you see why most firms are going internal these days. Much better for everyone, get the sketchy, selfish, unreliable middleman out of the business.

Reply TJ on Apr 10, 11:16 AM said:

12

Flag as Offensive @sharn cedar: Nice comment ,but I have to disagree. The external recruiters are telling you exactly what they know. Sometimes there is a disconnect between the external recruiters and the clients. The clients will say one thing and then do another. This happens a lot in the industry. I know for my company we do not try to do a "bait and switch" We try to learn the client and clearly and effectively communicate the company to the candidates.

The market is moving to more external recruiters. The clients themselves are not capable of recruiting technical people. This is why companies are using external agencies. The client has the ability to post a job and that is it. They call it posting and praying. The advantage of using an agency is the ability to get technical people in a short period of time. I realize there are recruiters out there that are "slimy", but this is not the case for 70 percent of them. They care and they try to find the best fit for their clients. Our job is hard work and we do the best we can to service the clients and the candidates.

Reply Ryan Formato on Apr 10, 12:27 PM said: @st8181: I looked for cream.hr, but the link seems to be broken. I found creamhr.co.uk and creammetrics.com when searching. Which one are you referring to as they both seem intriguing to me? Thanks.

Flag as Offensive

Reply st8181 on Apr 10, 12:33 PM said: @Ryan Formato: @Ryan Formato I have been using www.creammetrics.com... I have never heard about the UK company.

Flag as Offensive

Reply Ray on Apr 11, 10:34 AM said: @sharn cedar: Excellent observation.

Flag as Offensive

Reply Marian on Apr 11, 8:19 PM said: @TJ: I agree more with Sharn. Some organisations are moving back to internal recruitment as they are not getting the benefits for the costs from externals.

Flag as Offensive

Yes there are some really good professional agencies out there who provide great service to their customers i.e. both the recruiting company and candidates however I would say they are the minority. The market is saturated with 'used car sales' types who are after 'quick sales', meeting monthly sales targets and maximising their fees all at the expense of their clients. I personally have seen and been victim of some appalling behaviour from agencies and believe the industry needs to be regulated better e.g. compulsory to display their full fees to both the candidate and the company

Reply

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 6 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

criticatlarge on Apr 12, 1:08 AM said:

Flag as Offensive @st8181: Amen, st8181. Rsums are extremely pass, I stopped using them mmmm over 25 years ago, along with 'job placement specialists', the state 'employment services bureau' et al. A -simple-, one-page qualifications brief which outlines how your experience relates -directly- to the position you're attempting to interview for works MUCH better, IMNSHO. Especially if you can quantify things like time / money savings, process improvement, even intangible gains which make things work better. They may be called something else now, I haven't written one in quite a long time. FYI there's an article on them at the DAILYKOS.COM website, but I do not agree with everything Diana in NoVa put forward; for instance I would not recommend saying you have 'X years in the food and beverage service industry'. Most recruiters CAN add and subtract, and how LONG is not as important has how WELL you did your (last, other, similar or not) job(s). If innerested, email me, I have a particular tome I'm enamored of which does a great job of explaining the how's and why's of QB's.

Like st8181 sez (more or less): SHOW me the talent, I might just show you your new cubicle. Hmm. Arrggh!

Reply Nick on Apr 9, 10:53 PM said: Thank you for the tip regarding cream HR.

Flag as Offensive

Reply David G on Apr 10, 1:53 AM said: The Ladders is a scam, just like 90% of recruiters.

22

25

Flag as Offensive

Reply XdwolfX on Apr 10, 2:11 AM said: The hell with resumes, and "jobs". Step 1 Find something broken If you didnt find something broken, find something (preferable something that doesn't belong to you) and break it. Step 2 Offer to fix it, or to dispose of said broken thing, for a fee. Step 3 Continue to repeat steps 1 and 2, until a govt agency starts to harrass you for "licenses, permits, fines, violations, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla" at which point you ignore them for as long as possible. When legal fees from said annoyances rack up high enough, burry your profits in the back yard... and declare bankruptcy. Step 4 Rinse and repeat as often as possible. You are now running a legitimate business in America. Congratulations

25

11

Flag as Offensive

Reply Paul Jacinto on Apr 10, 2:13 AM said:

Flag as Offensive Another thing, 6 seconds is the AVERAGE time; an experienced recruiter would have developed certain skills in looking for the pertinent details in a CV without having to read word-for-word. Hence in a pile of CVs you can spend 6 seconds average (or less) on most CVs, but more time on those that are deemed fit based on content and form. If a person has put enough effort in the form of his/her CV, it says a lot to me compared to those who can't come up with an above-average CV--might even take it that the person isn't seriously looking at all.

And to st8181, I believe you are right that CVs are starting to become antiquated, but for most it still is the primary means of getting a "foot-in-the-door". But as a search consultant I am relying more than ever on LinkedIn, and as your "virtual CV" I think people should put more effort in constructing their LinkedIn profiles.

Reply Rui on Apr 10, 5:08 AM said: How about recruiters taking more more time to examine a CV, not just look at it??? After all, that's what they are paid to do, isn't it???

Flag as Offensive

Reply RJ on Apr 10, 2:19 PM said:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

18

2
Page 7 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

18 2 @Rui: Okay, so if the recruiter only spends 6 seconds looking at an average resume, lets do the math: This would mean an average Flag as Offensive recruiter could scan (I wont give them credit for reading or actually reviewing) eight resumes per minute. Possibly, up to four hundred and eighty resumes per hour. Over three thousand resumes a day. Are they really that inundated with that many resumes and if they spend so little time looking at them, why are clients not happy with the results? Obviously it cant be a lack of talented candidates to choose from. You know the other day in the supermarket; I spent a minute and a half picking out a cabbage to cook for dinner. Maybe thats what is wrong with the whole process!

Reply Felts on Apr 10, 7:01 PM said: @RJ: @Rui. No recruiters are not paid to examine CV's. Recruiters are paid for matching relevant candidates to relevant requirements, thus getting paid. Who pays recruiters to examine CV's? If you are offering money for me to examine CV's then by all means get in touch!

Flag as Offensive

Reply Thamir Ghaslan on Apr 10, 6:11 AM said:

49

13

Flag as Offensive Taking into account that I don't randomly shoot my CV and only do so when I carefully see a match. Fine, I'll just shrink my CV from 1 to 2 pages to 2 paragraphs so it would fit into their 6 seconds precious time. Considering you've seen enough CVs I'm sure this format will grab your ADHD attention span. Current role & degree should be enough. Want more info on my awesomeness and how well rounded my previous roles made me? Talk to me for more details.

Reply Shokran on Apr 10, 11:49 AM said: @Thamir Ghaslan: Your mentioning of ADHD here is out of context and disrespectful to those afflicted by this disorder. So thumbs down to you!

45

Flag as Offensive

Reply Jim Peak on Apr 11, 4:13 PM said:

18

Flag as Offensive @Shokran: Ah, c'mon- that seems a little bit oversensitive. I disagree. Saying ADHD is a way of characterizing behavior that suffers from a particular weakness. Haven't you ever shouted, "Are you blind?" to a ref? I take psych meds, but I don't get upset when people talk about psychos. In fact, I *enjoy* good psycho jokes! IMO, this is not insulting people who suffer from ADHD- it's saying that someone is acting similar to those who suffer from the "deficit," and the "disorder" (the Ds in ADHD).

Reply Owais OB Baig on Apr 10, 6:21 AM said: For any serious recruiter for any serious roles, this isn't true at all

Flag as Offensive

Reply whatseansaw (URL) on Apr 10, 8:21 AM said:

27

I was initially very taken by this research so I took a look at the supporting material available from the link in the article. Having done that I was pleased to see that the report was based on a study. I went looking for the study* and this is where I hit a problem. This study, research and "scientific" method would appear to have been carried out by a web developer. Whilst its not unbelievable that a web developer would be able to follow the scientific method it seems unlikely that this employee of TheLadders might have the same dispassionate lack of bias that one might expect of an independent scientist.

Flag as Offensive

Having read the report which is based on the study it confirms that bad CVs are bad and that good ones are good. Recruiters spend most time looking at your name (!), current job and company, past job and company and finally your education. I wasn't aware that most CVs contained much more than this. The report then moves on to explain, at some length, why a profile with TheLadders is better than a profile on LinkedIn. I would be interested in an independent study of CVs, if anyone comes across one, do please let me know. In the meantime, Business Insider, perhaps scrutinise the sources of your articles a little more thoroughly. This took me less than 15 minutes! *Eye Tracking Online Metacognition: Cognitive Complexity and Recruiter Decision Making. Will Evans, Head of User Experience Design, TheLadders. 2012.

Reply Katy Castor on Apr 10, 8:26 AM said:

20

I have worked in both the staffing world and now am an internal recruiter at a company, and I don't see how either or the environments make a difference. I have always heard recruiters being taught to not judge someone on a resume and DON'T over-analyze a resume, just pick up the phone and call. I think people are missing the point, when a recruiter scans a resume for 6 seconds, if the recruiter is doing it correctly, this can be a good thing for a
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Flag as Offensive

Page 8 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

candidate. They will call the candidate and let them sell them self. I think where this study is missing information is this scan is just the initial look at a resume, then someone is called or emailed and when I'm finally talking to that person, we are going over a lot of aspects that are discussed on the resume. www.recruitermind.com

Reply experienced job seeker on Apr 10, 8:45 AM said: To my experience it doesn't matter how good you are, recruiters are only interested in getting their own commission. They don't care about finding the right job for you. They will happily thrown at you a lot of job offers you are overqualified for and mostly crappy positions other people have quit from, out of desperation.

16

15

Flag as Offensive

Therefore it is worthless to make your CV more appealing to a recruiter. It is much better that you, as a jobseeker, invest your time by looking for a job without a recruiter. Speak directly to employers! You do not need a written CV to demonstrate your knowledge, experience and expectations. You can do better that by words of mouth. And if you fail to land a good job, why not to work for yourself?

Reply Career Recruiter on Apr 10, 10:28 AM said:

14

Flag as Offensive @experienced job seeker: No doubt there are plenty of jaded candidates out there. While some are most certainly the product of their own misery, others have probably developed a bitter mentality towards recruiters as a result of interactions gone south. Though it might seem like an easy decision to simply cast head hunters aside and trudge ahead on ones own merit (resume be damned) I would spend a moment here to argue against that notion.

The reality is this- companies retain the services of recruiters out of sheer necessity. Human Resources is no longer designed to provide expertise in the various departments it takes to run and thrive an organization. Why pay someone $70,000 a year in hopes that they may come across the ideal candidate every now and again when instead you (ABC, Inc) can pay only for the result of a need, after the fact. Because companies have come to such a realization, recruiters are here to stay (the good ones AND the bad ones). Because we are here to stay, the candidate will be dependant on our services. The good news? Some of us are really great at what we do. Some of us have made a career of talent acquisition, a career only made possible by consistently helping to improve the lives of the candidates we work with and a steady, concious effort to extend the bridge rather than burn it. We are the experts in our field. We study up on the market. We attend countless seminars, socials, and business events. We know everyone in our area...EVERYONE. There is a lot more to recruiting than simply "slinging resumes". On an average day we might sort through hundreds of CVs. Truthfully speaking- some will stand out while others will not. It isn't because we don't care, it's not a result of some preconcieved bias, and it certainly doesn't imply that we're only after the quick buck (any career recruiter will tell you there's no such thing). You have to remember that we don't know you. All we have to form an initial opinion about the entirety that is you, the candidate, resides in your resume. We have dozens, in some case hundreds of people clammering for a single position and it is our job to find the BEST one. We have to start somewhere before we "dial for dollars" (a recruiter should spend an average of 3-4 hours on the phone each day). Right or wrong the popular notion is to help those that help themselves. You might be the BEST candidate for the position. You may have ALL the experience necessary to get the job and most likely you are the quintessential "no brainer" for the position I have available...but you didn't put it on your resume...and I don't know you...so as far as I can tell you don't have it. You are 1 of 100 CVs I have to power through this morning and you didn't take anytime to match your skills and experience to the position for which you applied. I'm not here to argue what's fair or suggest what's right or to behave as if I know you...and that's my point.

Reply BVW on Apr 10, 9:29 AM said:

35

Flag as Offensive Lets all settle down here for a moment... It takes a good recruiter 5 seconds to know if someone is wrong for a job. It takes a lot longer to figure who is right. If a company is looking for X and your resume says Y how difficult an equation is this to solve? Do you think a hiring manager is any different? The naivety of the "professional" work force is astounding. I know I know... recruiters are scum...but here is a mirror for you all. When you apply for a job directly and don't get it, who do you blame then? Lets all start to take a little more responsibility for our careers. Some recruiters suck some are good. LIKE EVERY OTHER PROFESSION! For a bunch of business "professionals" there is an awful lot of whining going on.

Reply Jerry Jaiven on Apr 13, 9:00 AM said:

Flag as Offensive @BVW: As a hiring manager over the past 30 years, I have seen my share of resumes. Not in the hundreds for each position, but certainly in the dozens. When I used to receive them directly, I would go through them quickly (20-30) seconds to quickly discard the ones who lacked the required education or experience. Then I went through the pile again, looking for strong fit versus weak fit. (Really, an A-B-C analysis.) Then I ranked the strong fits as potential interviews. One almost automatic disqualifier - typos. I have been in the IT field, both software development and infrastructure support, and those little errors kill a program or a network.

Reply Chet1351 on Apr 10, 9:30 AM said:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

12

3
Page 9 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

12 3 Actually no, we are paid by a client if and only if we find a qualified candidate, screen them, prep them and present them and then if they do Flag as Offensive well on the interview, get an offer, take the job, and work successfully for 90 days. The client couldn't care less how many people we speak to to find the right fit, just so that we find them somebody. If I have 10 PHP resumes to go through I can tell in 6 seconds if they have the right background and experience to warrant consideration and weed out those that don't and call those that do.

Reply Gary Harding on Apr 10, 9:32 AM said: So what happens with resumes from individuals that have a long work record (20+ years) and have multiple jobs listed? Does the study give any insight to how recruiters handle multiple page resumes? As an aside what is the current thinking regarding how best to chronicle a long and rich job history?

Flag as Offensive

Reply Chet1351 on Apr 10, 9:56 AM said:

Flag as Offensive @Gary Harding: Honestly? We only look at the first page and the first couple of jobs. This is why you should always have a summary/list of technology used on the first page. Resumes should highlight a particular skill set or tool you've worked with otherwise if it is buried down somewhere on page 3 it's going to be missed. The thing is if you used a particular skill say 10-12 years ago, clients usually don't care. Again this is when dealing with IT specifically. You have to realize recruiters work for their clients. If the client says don't show me anybody who doesn't have x, y, z in the past 2 years, then that is what we're going to look for and then move on.

Reply BVW on Apr 10, 2:50 PM said:

@Gary Harding: The thinking is... DON'T No one (Recruiters, HR, Hiring managers.) Wants to read a 4 page resume. Long and rich are great but this should come out in an interview. One's inability to present them-self in a clear and concise manner is detrimental to their subsequent consideration. Lets take a step back to what a resume is. It is a foot in the door, nothing more. 1-2 pages tops. Dont get bogged down in minutia, I assure you, if you are qualified for a job, your experience will shine through in an interview, that is the time to draw from your long rich history, like any thing else in business, show dont tell.

Flag as Offensive

Reply james Eastwood (URL) on Apr 10, 9:30 PM said: @Chet1351: People in management that are unable to spend more than a few seconds reading a resume for a prospective employee have no business being in management. Part of what is destroying our country. They are full of themselves.

14

Flag as Offensive

Reply Tony on Apr 12, 10:18 AM said: @james Eastwood: Amen James!!

Flag as Offensive

Reply Jeremy on Apr 13, 11:23 PM said:

Flag as Offensive @BVW: Thanks so much for this impressive information. My question is Most of the time, the Job descriptions require the experience, for exampe 5+years But I just have 2-3 years exps, and assume that actually I am qualified for this position, my skills perfectly match the JD. Does that mean I still do not have the opportunity to pass the resume screening just due to lack of enough experience?

Reply Stuart Baran on Apr 10, 9:45 AM said: As a Recruiter I can easily spot several flaws in the rationale of this article. The most pertinent is that most resumes received do not suit the positions at hand. A cursory glans is all thats required to determine that a candidate does not fit a role. This study would be far more relevant if it selected for the resumes that Recruiters spent more than, perhaps, 90 second reviewing. While the notion of 6 seconds to impress may be a bit of sensationalism, it should be obvious that a well written resume is very important.

12

Flag as Offensive

Reply

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 10 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

Tony Boyce on Apr 10, 9:54 AM said: LinkedIn had a bit of a discussion on the subject of recuiters and cover letters and I remarked about them taking all of 15 seconds or so to look at a resume and got blasted for it. Nice to see I was waay off in my assumptions. /banghead

24

Flag as Offensive

How in the world are we the job seekers supposed to write our resumes when we have all of 6 seconds of a recuiters attention? It's bad enough you have what seems to be 18 different ways to write a resume and everybody wants it in their format, yet no one wants to say what format is the preferred one to send out to the businesses.

Reply Karl on Apr 10, 10:16 AM said:

Flag as Offensive Interesting, and probably something to be learned from this study. It should be noted however, that the research was conducted by a resume writing service. This makes it's conclusions that resumes should be written by professionals and that LinkedIn profiles - a.k.a. competing resumes - are distracting and less effective than TheLadders service. See: http://cdn.theladders.net/static/images/basicSite/pdfs/TheLadders-EyeTracking-StudyB.pdf

Reply casas panama (URL) on Apr 10, 11:00 AM said: I'm intrigued that Education is at the bottom yet it seems to get a lot of attention. Particularly in the right CV.

Flag as Offensive

Reply Andrew Schneider on Apr 10, 11:27 AM said: Most likely that is where the scroll button wood be on the initial page load

Flag as Offensive

Reply Adriana Zapata on Apr 10, 11:41 AM said: Hi Vivian, Can we have a templete similar to the CV on the right? Thanks in advance

Flag as Offensive

Reply 7of7Cs on Apr 10, 11:47 AM said: I realize that job title is definitely a deciding factor on whether or not to take a more in depth look at a resume, but what if your current job title does not represent your role properly? Is it acceptable to change the title you "officially" have with your current employer to give a better picture of what it is you do for that first-glance impression?

Flag as Offensive

Reply So I guess the unemployed are screwed (way to rebuild America) (URL) on Apr 10, 12:00 PM said:

54

So if the unemployed aren't working (obviously), then they are not worth further investigation? If they (or someone else) takes a job "because any job is better than none" (according to the same recruitiers) that doesn't precisely fit the job they are applying for, they are screwed. One wonders how American companies were hiring millions and millions of workers for two centuries before HR, recruiters, social media, and every other hurdle out there. When workers were recruited and went overseas within months to fight in WWI and WII and Vietnam, one wonders how, oh how, did companies replace them so quickly with women and workers and farmers from other areas and industries without previous experience and yet train them so quickly and effectively? Was HR and/or recruiters involved? Nope, but it worked and worked well for the USA. Now look at we have and what we have become.

Flag as Offensive

Reply SKM on Apr 10, 1:00 PM said: @So I guess the unemployed are screwed (way to rebuild America): Here, Here!

12

Flag as Offensive

Reply RJ on Apr 10, 2:02 PM said: @So I guess the unemployed are screwed (way to rebuild America): I wish I understood what works any more. Everybody has a different
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

35

Flag as Offensive

Page 11 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

idea on what should be on a resume. Everybody wants it in their own format (to more easily forward to the hiring manager and NOT have to actually understand what the candidate has to offer). Most recruiters now want the buzz words and they themselves have absolutely no clue to what they mean. Everybody has had to deal with a salesman that does not know what they are talking about and we are usually insulted by that. Most (not all) recruiters dont have a clue, have not spent hundreds of hours in the trenches solving problems and staying up for days with no sleep and little food getting a system back on its feet after a severe crash, yet they are qualified to judge me whether I fit the prospective business profile? Oh come on. They have the nerve to tell me I dont have in-depth knowledge enough on a given technology? Then they ask why have you been out of work for more than a few months? Obviously they have not been unemployed, typing up dozens of resumes, filling out hundreds of badly written and crashing on-line web forms, trying to find a fit with a varied background, sending out dozens of e-mails and leaving the recruiters countless messages which they wont even return a simple phone call. You spend countless hours trying to figure out how you are still going to feed your family, pay the bills and not lose their home they have worked decades to have and starring at piles of bills that will take years to recover from providing someone thinks you might fit I have been prepped for interviews that were anything but what the recruiter said it would be indicating that they have no real world experience in this field. Not to mention, no matter how good the resume, the phone screen goes, when you show up, it is obvious that one cannot hide their age and then you are grilled until the prospective employer finds a fault so that they can tell the recruiter, This person doesnt have enough experience in blah blah blah so they cant be hit with a legal discrimination case. Where do you turn? The unemployment office doesnt want to help, they just want to make sure if you make a dime, you report it so that can put your account on hold for thirty days while they decide if you should continue to receive benefits? Are you kidding me? The recruiter being similar to a used car salesman analogy is absolutely true. Not in all cases, but most and I have had my fill of poor service, no communication, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and working for only their best interest and not working with their prospective candidates. Resume format? Maybe we should try the Baskin Robbins approach; which of the 31 flavors do you want? I want chocolate. Im sorry we are all out of chocolate ice cream!

Reply Outsourcing US companies aren't pulling this overseas on Apr 10, 2:16 PM said:

28

Flag as Offensive @RJ: You got it right. In the US, Americans with military experience (or without), with every degree under the sun, and the willingness to move anywhere in the world (for those without families) still won't get hired because they are "overqualified," "too independent," "too much of a team player (or too little)," "military folks expect to rise too quickly" "people with PhDs cannot work in other industries" blah blah blah. You don't want to hire smart Americans who want to be loyal, work hard, and simply save a little for their families and come up with every lame excuse and reason not to hire us? Go peddle those BS wares elseware. I agree 100%. These same hoops don't come into play when they want to hire H-1B visa applicants for pennies on the dollar or overseas workers in slave-live conditions. Do we think Foxconn is scanning resumes for its workers? Nope. Does Infosys pull this on overseas applicants here in the US? Nope. Microsoft, Dell, etc. etc.? NOPE. It's crap and the rules are purposelessly stacked against US citizens that built this country. So Fortune 500 companies act all surprised when their corporate intelligence is stolen? Guess what? If they hired Americans (and with 22% real unemployment - they are right here waiting) they wouldn't lose intel and stregthen their foreign competition and foreign nations. But long-term thinking and planning went out of fashion a couple of decades ago.

Reply Marcelle on Apr 12, 11:28 AM said: @RJ: Yes! Yes! Yes! Now this is what I'm talking about. I totally feel your frustration with recruiters.

Flag as Offensive

Reply Michael Lear-Olimpi on Apr 12, 12:05 PM said: @So I guess the unemployed are screwed (way to rebuild America): That's often the assumption: You're not working, or self-employed, so you can't be worth anything. Oh, 'scuse me -- I gotta go play tiddly-winks; the editing and other work I have to do can wait.

Flag as Offensive

Reply Those 22% unemployed Americans (shadowstats' numbers) must be discardable? on Apr 12, 12:40 PM said:

Flag as Offensive @Michael Lear-Olimpi: Yeah, I guess that's why vets have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country - they were good enough to serve their country, but beyond that, they arent worth anything?! That's pretty poor logic. What happens when someone takes time off to further their education, skills, etc.? Do they have to keep working or if they have one day of unemployment, they are forever deemed "unemployable"? Doesn't that conflict with the meme that all employees and others need to constantly learn and improve themselves. What happens when Jon Corzine f's up an entire business (MF Global) and worker bees at the low levels lose their jobs? How about when a CEO or venture capital firm burdens a firm with massive debt, removes too much equity and/or is paid too much in compensation, and the company goes belly up. The low level employees are forever unemployable while the brain surgeons at the top (e.g., Corzine) have no problem getting another gig, earning billions more? It seems the rules are quite arbitrary, but always enforced against those without political or economic clout.

Reply Spencer Gehring on Apr 10, 12:05 PM said: What I find the most amusing is how much time they spend staring at the white space in the margins! Let's face it. They're human like the rest of us. What they look at is exactly what you and I would look at.

Flag as Offensive

Reply Norma Tassy (URL) on Apr 10, 12:27 PM said: This information is meant to draw attention to the services that The Ladders provides. OF COURSE a recruiter looks for skills, experience and
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

12

Flag as Offensive

Page 12 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

education. But this ridiculous and alarmist information is published off the scans of 30 recruiters. C'mon. Recruiters are paid to provide a service. And that is to present their clients with a slate of qualified clients that the client could not have come up with on their own. There is no magic formula for doing so. Some recruiters read every word, some scan leisurely, some scan quickly. There are as many ways to do the job as there are recruiters. These hasty generalizations get people thinking "Oh The Ladders knows what they are talking about...I should buy into their service" and that's what The Ladders counts on when publishing such nonsense. They are NOT thinking "Hey let's give the people some information they can use and act upon".

Reply SKM on Apr 10, 12:56 PM said:

13

All of the posts so far, are very diverse, opinionated, and fallaciously argumentative used with deductive reasoning. No wonder our nation is in the hole. There is no creditability with this study much less from any recruiters statements. Since all of our society has had education, knowledge, experience, and leadership in sociology, psychiatry, law, medicine etc.; you know how to understand multi-generational values in order to critically think and above all give a candidate a basic Prove It test for typing, throw into the mix a Myers-Briggs Test while you are at it. I believe that it is good that we have all taken the time to read this article and comment. Let us all come together and get our nation, by creating jobs, back on its feet. Let us learn from one another. Ya, Right! For some reason all the hands into this mix, all states, all job markets, is the correct set of hands. Who says what is right; who says what is wrong of how a person lays out the context of a resume. How egoistical, narcissistic, and narrow. You cannot put your life on one sheet of paper. You cannot conceive or distinguish a candidate and their careers abilities in 6 seconds. Tell You? Show you? How can I physically show you or tell you on one piece of paper how my days are at work on a daily basis, hour in and out of my week, especially with little to no supervision? We get up out of bed, leave our homes and families, fight traffic, work hard, get home, cook dinner, give baths, and hopefully get a goods nights rest. Our fellow American wants to badger the other and push for perfectionism? All personal aspects of our world have depreciated tremendously. I remember walking into a business and asking for the hiring manager. Now it is all a big black hole that resumes are sent out into. People are treated like herds of cows. Since it is like this in this modern world, I am sure that the next cow can make the same milk as the one standing next to it. Everyone is unique in their own way. If the context listed on the resume is in line with the job description that the employer is looking for; get the interview. Take the time to meet your possible employee face to face and discover who they are and what they can do for you and your company. They just might bring in some revenue and put you in the New York Times. Your loss I guess. Quit putting our life listed on one piece of paper into a petri dish and under the microscope. People are Human Beings. A resume is only meant to be a snap shot of saying, Hey, recently this is what I have done and this is what I can do. I sure do miss that old saying. When can you start? Oh, and by the way, YOU DO NOT NEET A DEGREE TO GET THE JOB DONE! Show me the money! This all makes me sad to be a Human Being much less an American.

Flag as Offensive

Reply Rusty S on Apr 11, 5:28 PM said: @SKM: You're yelling into a black hole now. How does it feel to be that which you hate on? By the way, being American is no longer something to brag about. Time to get over it.

14

Flag as Offensive

Reply Marian on Apr 11, 8:26 PM said: @SKM: Hi SKM - there is a whole world outside if the US. LinkedIn is not used solely by Americans

11

Flag as Offensive

Reply Charles O on Apr 10, 1:04 PM said:

Flag as Offensive As a job seeker I do find this interesting. Yes the conclusions are 1-biased b/c it's coming from Ladders 2-dependent on the candidate's experience and the job applied for (i.e. mileage may vary). However what I do find interesting is where recruiters spend their time on resume 2. As a job seeker, it's hard to know what on my resume recruiters will key off of. This exercise gives me a better idea where to place key information. I would love to see this info from a more credible source.

Reply Receive email updates on new comments!

More Comments

Join the discussion with your Facebook Login

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 13 of 14

How Recruiters See Your Resume - Business Insider

4/14/12 7:44 PM

8 comments Wayne Schofield Principal at S. E. Technical, LLC

Add a comment

Qualified people are not skipped over by recruiters. The time is so short because candidates don't read job postings and are praying that recruiters don't read the resume before hiring. If you were sitting in my seat you would know that some candidates don't even deserve 6 seconds! A good recruiter can determine in 10 seconds or less if the candidate is qualified enough to call for the role they are searching for. That said, the resume on the right includes education which is a huge hotspot. The Ladders report is hugely flawed! Reply 4 Like April 10 at 5:40am

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-recruiters-look-at-during-the-6-seconds-they-spend-on-your-resume-2012-4

Page 14 of 14