From the standpoint of being a hiring manager carefully seeking out the best fit for my organization, there are several aspects taken into consideration. There is not by any means one factor in the interview process overwhelmingly outweighing another among hopeful applicants. Meaning, if one has exceptionally impressive resume bullet points of their past in which such is defaulted to as the be-all/end-all used as a singular defining criteria of promoting their value to you—then that person’s not automatically an ideal candidate to hire.
Correlating Accolades to the Position
Why? Could be a number of things. Perhaps they use it as a crutch because a sense exists that another area of more importance for this particular position is one not of strength. Therefore, despite previously earned accolades, there’s no real correlation. If there’s a lack of an essential understanding by an applicant regarding how to correctly connect an accomplishment made elsewhere into the relevancy held within the scope of a hiring manager’s present needs—it’s too much of an effort by all parties to bridge that gap. Thus a wash. Next…
While importance on background is certainly not dismissed, without measuring the latter factor in the equation is doing a disservice. Translating resume bullet points into a present, quantitative impact made in which that then equates into future growth is significant here. Hiring managers learn from interview number one to number one-hundred, how to weigh things out—as it takes a lot of time and a lot of people to make the best mutual match.
Importance of a Resume
In the case of the first individual I ever interviewed, I placed 70% importance on resume. Over multiple occasions of assigning duties to seemingly ideal hirees subsequently unable to apply their education and experience to the tasks called for at hand, I learned how the examination of the entire individual’s talents must be duly combined with their skills to make an effortless conversion of bringing them forward in a manner beneficially unique to what I needed.
Thereby, by hiree one hundred, the resume clearly is placed at a 30% importance factor. I now weigh out not mainly stats presented to me on a piece of paper, but how the person presents themselves. This includes their overall body of work/pride in appearance and linguistics (i.e. appropriate attire/display of proper speech without slang terminology). A showcase of personality, eye contact, how they speak and answer a question with a direct answer as opposed to, again, defaulting to how they dealt with their own situation somewhere else.
Not to mention, many embellishments have later revealed themselves from resumes. Thinking outside of the box is key. If you went to Harvard, that is certainly an extremely impressive piece of personal data, worthy of extra consideration through the process. However, this fact alone does not define a candidate, especially if they’re equating this to their primary worth to you. Everything must be examined. Training and experience are indeed essential keys, an “X” factor in the mix is the “A to A” ideal.
Adaptability to Apply
This is what I call Adaptability to Apply—a high-tier point to value amongst any evaluation. The ability to not rest on the laurels of your education and/or past successes, yet rather to certainly be proud of said background while adding to it. That’s simultaneously conveying a plan in actually applying them. The how/why in which its application equates to beneficial returns for a company hiring you is how to ascertain value in those accolades relevance. Thus, validating the worthiness of selection as a hiree.
Have any more thoughts on our breakdown of the hiring process? Let us know down in the comments.
This article originally published on GREY Journal.