Sorting through job applications/resumes

[ponyfool]

I recently posted a job opening for Office Manager for our union. I received nearly 50 applications. I started weeding through the applications, and my wife and I started having discussions on the best way to whittle the numbers down.

Aside from the obvious forum style advice of "going for the one with the biggest ****s" or the like, I'm looking for a more professional answer to get the 50 down to 10 for interviewing.

Presentation of the cover letter and resume are important. For example, I received one resume and cover letter folded into the smallest envelope you can imagine. When I opened it, it was folded 13 ways from sideways. This is not someone I want preparing professional documents for our organization.

Where I am curious if I am picky is this. I received a professional looking resume and cover letter where the applicant indicated she paid great attention to detail. However, her application was full of typos including significant editing errors that left dead end sentences like "I'm excited to have the opportunity and."

Is it wrong for me to take examples like these and immediately put them in the "no" file without even looking at their qualifications? The reason I'm asking is, of the 50 applications, 30 to 40 of them seem to be qualified. Should I start with the qualified applicants and then weed them out via these types of issues, or is it ok to quickly weed out the ones I see these types of red flags on, and then interview the remaining 10-12?

 

[FJRBluesman]

No. Your method sounds fine to me. If you don't feel good about what you see go with your gut feel. Although you may need to reduce your expectations, maybe not. I would be cautious of such simple items that people are challenged by. In today's economic times, I would think you should be in the drivers seat and have many qualified applicants. Just MHO.

Good luck on your quest.

 

[madmike2]

You are NOT too picky! This is a competitive market and you want the best applicant. My daughter wasn't picky enough and a 3 month fiasco ended very badly with a termination and now over one month sorting through all that wasn't done and repairing what was done improperly.

The image each applicant presents to you is the corporate image they will present in the work they produce.

Your requirements are much different than the thread about spelling and punctuation on the internet and the FJR Forum. The above mentioned skills are requisite for the position you've posted. When you pare to the final dozen, the interview process should help determine the personality and people skills each applicant claims to possess (which I assume are also important in your working environment).

Should I start with the qualified applicants and then weed them out via these types of issues, or is it ok to quickly weed out the ones I see these types of red flags on, and then interview the remaining 10-12?

Yes!

But what do I know. I'm not a professional in the context of your personnel search and I certainly wouldn't do well in any Human Resource position.

 

[v65]

Typically when we post an offering we get at least 150 applicants, and there is always 10, maybe 20, worth looking at. You can see the ones to weed out almost immediately, as you seem to have noticed. One time I decided I was going to read through each and every applicants entire dossier (generally 10-15 pages) very carefully trying to look for positives instead of eliminating them for things like grammar, I ended up reaching the same 10 final applicants I would have doing the weeding process and it took four times as long.

 

[Ian Farlow]

I have to agree with the others: not at all too picky. First impressions are important, even if not in person. A wrinkled resume stuffed into a too small envelope, or a resume with typos from someone who proclaims attention to detail, indicates people that don't really pay attention or take the interview process seriously. As you noted, these are not the types of people you want, so immediately passing them up is the right thing to do.

No reason to dwell on it. As others have indicated, these people are competing for a job. If they can't even get the basics right and with a certain level of professionalism, why on earth would you expect them to do any better at work? Let them go, and keep whittling away at the rest of the applicants. Sounds to me like you are handling everything just right.

 

[sonicspeed]

just go with the one with the best looking ****/*** combination.

efficiency is highly overrated

 

[Fred W]

You are not being too picky. IMO, you can not be too picky when it comes to hiring.

It takes a lot of hard work to get rid of the *******s that do get through and shouldn't have.

 

[Dr. Rich]

When I review applications (I read lots) I look to see if the application was completely filled out and was it typed or printed carefully. I do look for spelling and grammar errors. I look for educational level and how long it has been since they have had formal education, staff development or professional training. One of my keys is I look for gaps. Gaps in education, gaps in employment, have they moved around a lot and most importantly have they had consistency in the types of jobs they have held and the length of time they have held them. I don't put any importance on letters of recommendation since I have never seen a bad one. One of the other keys for me is references. If they list supervisors or superiors I am pleased, but if they list someone that they sat next to in church, well that speaks volumes to me... Just my thoughts. Rich

 

[Badcat]

Go for the best you can find. There are too many people who skate by on the bare minimum required while there are good people waiting for a chance.

Years ago I had a boss that replied to applicants that turned in poor resumes. He would explain why spelling, grammar and such was important and why the resume was tossed. His idea was to hopefully make them improve and have better chance the next time around.

 

[user 6393]

Being an office manager myself, no....you are not being too picky!

My favorite is when possible applicants arrive at their interview in workout gear. Oh the joys!

 

[kurt]

The applicant you seek has impeccable spelling and grammar. He or she will communicate with heads of local, county and national entities. Nothing defeats your argument faster than a communiqué full of typos.

 

[ultimateanswer]

I am a senior engineer for an Oil and Natural Gas drilling service company based in Houston, and part of my job is exactly what you are doing right now. Finding the right applicant for an empty position in your company. My personal experience has been that we will get 100-150 applicants out of those about half say 75 of them are right out of college and have no real world experience, a quarter say around 37 are experienced and the other 37-38 are useless. We has a computer system in place that weeds through the useless experience and college mumbo-jumbo, and just presents applicants which meet the education and experience levels we desire in out department whether it is Geo-Science, Drilling and Evaluation, or Applications and Tools. Then it is my responsibility to weed through the 80 or so applications to find the top 10-15 to interview. What I look for is grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and general attention to detail in their resume and application. If they have missed these things in their resume what's to say that they won't catch them when we are drilling a $25 Million well? You are not being to picky if anything else you should be MORE demanding of the applicants your company has attracted.

 

[dcarver]

You are way too picky. Simply hire me and be done with it!

Of course, I can only work a 4x10 weekly schedule with May, June, and July off so I can ride my motorsickle.

I need full benefits and 12 weeks paid vacation at hiring.

Whatcha think, eh Pony?

 

[Dr. Rich]

You are way too picky. Simply hire me and be done with it!Of course, I can only work a 4x10 weekly schedule with May, June, and July off so I can ride my motorsickle.

I need full benefits and 12 weeks paid vacation at hiring.

Whatcha think, eh Pony?

I think Old Michael is looking for models for his photographic endeavors! Just trying to assist!

 

[ponyfool]

You are way too picky. Simply hire me and be done with it!Of course, I can only work a 4x10 weekly schedule with May, June, and July off so I can ride my motorsickle.

I need full benefits and 12 weeks paid vacation at hiring.

Whatcha think, eh Pony?

What do I think? I already told you, I was looking for a more professional response than who has the biggest ****s......

 

[Auburn]

We just went through it looking for a project manager. I couldn't believe how many resumes were plain garbage.

 

[bikerskier]

You are way too picky. Simply hire me and be done with it!Of course, I can only work a 4x10 weekly schedule with May, June, and July off so I can ride my motorsickle.

I need full benefits and 12 weeks paid vacation at hiring.

Whatcha think, eh Pony?

What do I think? I already told you, I was looking for a more professional response than who has the biggest ****s......

Did he say what I think he said? And how does he know your cup size? Are you cheating on me?

 

[Fred W]

We just went through it looking for a project manager. I couldn't believe how many resumes were plain garbage.

Timely edit!

 

[Silver Penguin]

Is it wrong for me to take examples like these and immediately put them in the "no" file without even looking at their qualifications? The reason I'm asking is, of the 50 applications, 30 to 40 of them seem to be qualified. Should I start with the qualified applicants and then weed them out via these types of issues, or is it ok to quickly weed out the ones I see these types of red flags on, and then interview the remaining 10-12?

IMHO, you've already looked at the qualifications, or rather 'disqualifications' of the applicants whose resumes are discarded. It is not rocket science to figure out that your resume is your passport to an interview. If you choose not to proof read it, have a friend look it over and/or use spell-check then you assume the consequences.

Attention to detail and professional presentation are requirements for this particular position. Those applicants who demonstrate via their resumes that these qualities are of low importance to them, are telling you that they don't meet your requirements and don't need to waste your time with an interview.

I agree with your suggestion of interviewing the remaining 10-12. You might keep the next tier of resumes in reserve, in the case that none of the interviewees seem suitable. It's a buyer's market out there. You can afford to be picky!