I’ve heard rumblings in the tech community about how psychographic information will replace resumes. Companies, some argue, want to include personality traits and workstyle rather than education and previous roles. Seedcamp uses psychographic information. IMB checks into candidates’ social media and web presence. Other employers use algorithms and some analyze how candidates spend their time online.
The overriding argument is that employers want to weigh skills and competencies, but get little information from resumes. Business Insider suggests that we ditch resumes entirely because they’re just not useful.
That’s just silly. We all know that resumes are still useful, as they provide a window into a basic skillset and serve as a baseline for the candidate search process. Resumes aren’t perfect, in part because they’re created by candidates who want a job, not by the people who saw how well the candidate interacted in the real work world.
But that’s not the biggest problem with resumes. Ferreting out how an applicant will function as part of your team means measuring their ability to excel at the work you have, not the work they’ve done. And that’s challenging, until they’re actually doing the work in the same space with you.
My gold standard, focused on fit, is something you can’t measure (yet) with an algorithm. I know marketing, advertising, and public relations, and I know how to assess a workplace and a candidate to judge whether their priorities align. That’s why clients prefer me to algorithms or searchbot results.
The often elusive fit between candidate and employer is why I spend so much time and energy assessing applicants and registering the best as affiliates. Because then I’m not pulling resumes from a stack. I’m offering qualified candidates whose work styles, goals, and strengths match a company’s culture.
So keep your eye out for interesting trends in psychographic profiling and online forensics. But remember that you can’t judge a book by its Myers-Briggs score any more than you can by its resume.