Scott Porad

The feedback in comments and on Hacker News to yesterday’s post about getting your resume noticed was really spectacular.  I don’t purposefully write controversial posts, although I enjoy it when a post is controversial.  I find the exchange of ideas exhilarating.

I encourage you to read the feedback, although my analysis is that it fell in two general camps:

• Sometimes it’s culturally appropriate depending on geography and industry.
• It doesn’t make sense to screen based on a photo when what matters are skills.

As I see it, these two points of view are opposite sides of the same coin: what may be good for the candidate (the first point) is not necessarily good for the employer (the second point).

My intention when writing the post was to address candidates—to explain something that, as an hiring manager, caught my eye.  Although, as I said:

…it wasn’t his pretty face that was the deciding factor; he was a very qualified candidate who would have passed our screening regardless.

However, I was influenced by the commenters who advocated for anonymous resumes and screening.  That is, developing a process to screen resumes that don’t have names, addresses, photos or any other information that which might indicate anything beyond skills and experience.

As a candidate, I’m not sure that anonymous screening would be in my favor (see: yesterday’s post).  Yet, having considered the notion, as a hiring manager, this makes sense because I really do want the most qualified candidates.  The time to assess corporate culture fit is after having identified (through screening and interviews) the candidates who are most qualified to do the work.

I may experiment with this (anonymous job applications and resumes) at Cheezburger, although I haven’t determined exactly how just yet.  If you have suggestions, please leave them in the comments.