When a recruiter is looking at a resume, they are doing two things simultaneously. The first is to determine if the resume meets the basic requirements of the role – this includes location, education, length of experience and also a basic “fit” (titles, technology, projects/accomplishments).
The resumes that are NOT a high-level match will be rejected. The second pass is to drill down in more depth to look at how and when hard skills are used, specific industry and project work, level of responsibility, and what the applicant has highlighted as accomplishments.
All this evaluation is being compared to two sections of a specific job/job description. The first is the actual requirements/qualifications, the second is the scope and responsibility section of the job.
The requirements are the functional skills needed to do the job. This includes education and training, software packages, specific industry terminology/processes, length of time in relevant roles.
The area that a lot of applicants tend to miss or ignore is the “responsibility” section of the job. This tells you exactly what you will be doing, the requirements tells the reader how to do the job.
The recruiter is looking for similar experience in terms of scope, size, detailed examples of work and specific accomplishments.
The goal is to find the strongest candidate for the position the hiring manager needs filled. That is going to be a combination of all the factors in a job seeker’s background and how they mesh with the needs of the team. The most important factor to keep in mind is context. HOW did a particular project support the goals of the team? What were the types of problem you solved and how did you do it? What kind of employer is it; what is their size, industry placement (products/services); where did your role fit in?
The emphasis on keywords (these are generally HARD SKILLS) is more important when we are proactively sourcing – which means proactively “hunting” for the right profile.
The closer a fit we see, the better are your chances of moving forward in the process.
Comentários