

New Technique for Getting Your Resume Noticed - webwright
http://www.scottporad.com/2010/06/23/a-new-technique-for-getting-your-resume-noticed/

======
commieneko
It's a big ol' world, and I'm sure you can find an example of _anything_
working at least once, but this is not a good idea.

This isn't because its right, wrong, or indifferent, it isn't because how you
look should or shouldn't make a difference. It's because this is the way the
world works.

The conceit is that someone is being considered based upon what they've done,
not on the way they look. I've known HR departments to block out faces with
markers on resumes under review. When I'm confronted with a resume with a
face, at least for the first cut, I have to worry whether I'm selecting for
the face or the accomplishments. Later, when I actually meet the person,
_thats_ when that all important first impression happens. First impressions
should be based on the way someone _acts_ not on the way they _look_.

(And personally, if I'm impressed with their stats, even if they make a poor
or mediocre first impression, I try to go back and give them another chance; a
potential good employee is worth the extra effort.)

The only type of job for which this would be a good idea is for a job as an
actor/actress/performer. In their industry including a photo is routine.

------
mkramlich
Showing photo and age will make it stick out but precisely because you're
telling them age and (usually also) race and gender you're going to trigger
problems due to hiring and civil rights laws, esp if a large corp or HR is
involved.

Stick out? Yes. Bad way? Probably sometimes.

------
scottporad
Based on feedback, I followed this up with another post:
[http://www.scottporad.com/2010/06/24/getting-your-resume-
not...](http://www.scottporad.com/2010/06/24/getting-your-resume-noticed-vs-
hiring-the-best-candidate/)

------
daveschappell
I've tripled posted this already, but I don't like faces on resumes -- it can
be practical (if it shows the person in a manner that resonates with your
company culture), but the odds of that happening seem pretty remote, since it
can't be a good photo for all involved.

I think I'm starting to show my stodginess because I like resumes looking like
they've always looked.

------
edw519
This may work well once your resume makes it to the hiring manager, but
chances are that it won't get that far. Most corporate HR departments will
eliminate resumes with pictures to avoid any potential EEOC issues.

~~~
ddelony
I was thinking that if any company required photos with resumes, that they
would get into trouble if they kept picking white males.

It would be interesting if people could submit resumes anonymously, without a
picture or name.

~~~
scottporad
The anonymous submission thing is interesting to me, despite the fact that I
liked the photo idea.

I would genuinely be interested in participating in an experiment to compare
all resumes with pictures versus all resumes that are anonymous. I would like
to be the subject...to review the resumes and see if I'm biased or not. I
think that would be interesting.

------
phreanix
It's also a great way to start discriminating based on looks/gender/physical
appearance (fitness, for example)

------
nlawalker
From the article:

"literally anybody and everybody could do this and improve their resume in a
matter of minutes."

...and then it would no longer be a technique to make your resume stand out.

------
danshapiro
There's probably a good way to do this. The one time someone gave me a resume
with a face on it, it came across as creepy and desperate, and I ditched it
immediately.

------
jasonlgrimes
Maybe LinkedIn/Facebook is making this more socially acceptable. I sure would
like to picture a potential employee before phone screening/in depth
interviews.

~~~
supahfly_remix
Are you in a technical area? Why would someone's appearance matter? I can
understand if you're hiring for Hooter's (or sales, not too different).

The appearance of judging based on pictures can also open your company up to
EEO lawsuits.

~~~
scottporad
Appearance doesn't matter, and in the post, I don't think I ever said it did.
(In fact, what I said was, "it wasn’t his pretty face that was the deciding
factor; he was a very qualified candidate who would have passed our screening
regardless".)

I know nothing about this guy's skills other than what his resume says. But,
what I do know is that he's a person, compared to every one of these other
resumes that are an abstraction.

~~~
Groxx
And you also know that he's an early-middle-aged white male, which likely
influenced you to _some_ degree, however minor, in whatever direction. You've
even labeled him a "guy". Why "guy"? Why not some other term? A sense of
familiarity?

Hence the EEOC issues.

~~~
abeppu
Yeah, but most of the time, the name is going to give you strong clues about
gender and ethnicity anyways. And education and job history probably give you
good ideas about the applicant's age. People already have plenty of
opportunity to discriminate even without the photo.

~~~
Groxx
Very true.

I've long thought that I'd love to make / have a hiring-tool which just hashes
names and hides them (as there's still rare uses) and all racial data to hide
this sort of bias. I wonder what it'd do to hiring stats.

