How accountable are companies with initial candidate screenings?

Many will agree, job seeking in the digital age has always been a pain in the ass!

Dealing with cumbersome online applications...muddled and misleading content from a job description...and employer ghosting (after nailing that interview!).

Perhaps the biggest pain point for a job seeker is trying to craft the perfect resumé that speaks to a particular role. This includes utilizing resumé-building tools and applicant tracking system (ATS) “checkers” before sending them off to a particular job posting.   

With more companies utilizing third-party software vendors, it's tempting to ask this question...

Who’s running the show these days?

My point here isn’t centered on the ATS cons, per se. Many resumés that do find their way through the system, still have to influence a human decision-maker (who typically invests about five to 10 seconds skimming it).

What I do wrestle with is the lack of diligence by some companies to ensure this process is functioning properly. Primarily, the content of the employer's job posting and automated services that dictate what should go on a resumé.

Recently, I attended Jobscan’s Standout Summit 2024, (which was very informative and insightful, I must say).

For those not familiar with their platform, it checks resumé content for ATS compatibility and relevancy to a particular job posting.

If formatted correctly with plenty of relevant content, it should penetrate an initial online screening and get to a hiring decision-maker.

In theory.

What was truly sad about this process was that the most minuscule detail about certain words could gradually lower the ATS score on the resumé.

Which leads to that cushioning yet crippling rejection email.

Also, how many keywords does a person have to put on a resumé to make it resonate?  Are they even relevant to the role, or did AI dictate that as well?

When properly formatted resumés with relevant, parsed content are immediately auto-rejected, it may be time to address another question…

How mutually beneficial is this process?

For the last several years, I have been working “incognito” testing out these “ATS resumé checkers” and researching resumé sites that claim to have the solution to effectively penetrate them.

Despite my efforts to ensure these resumés were properly formatted and content parsed to align with the job posting….I never received a consistent score...just a contradiction between these services. 

It’s a shame and perplexing that I had to copy stand-alone keywords verbatim (ex: Microsoft Office vs. Microsoft 365) and restructure work history (that bordered on plagiarizing) to attain a score over 75.

Personally, if you are going to craft a resumé that scores that high, is it REALLY telling YOUR story?

I mean, how accurate does your information have to be as it relates to the relevancy of a company’s particular job posting? Or, make it to the "short list."

Maybe that’s why, according to LinkedIn only 10 to 20% of all resumés even get through the ATS.

Furthermore, for HR professionals relying on these platforms….are they attaining enough qualified applicants? 

Over the years, I have read so many poorly written job postings featuring unclear content, confusing job titles, and key responsibilities and qualifications being overshadowed by generic job skills.

Are companies just overusing templates?  Is this laziness? Or lack of creativity?

This not only reflects poorly on the employer brand, but conveys a lack of professionalism, attention to detail, and… a lack of respect for potential candidates!

According to a Monster survey of over 2,000 job seekers, 64% of respondents said they would not respond to a job posting that is poorly written and confusing.

Over the years, hiring decision-makers and recruiters have expressed their frustration to me when interviewing certain candidates. Somehow, they penetrated the ATS, only to demonstrate their ineptness when answering the remedial questions about what they could contribute to the role.

In some instances, I respectfully suggest contacting the ATS/HRIS vendor and reevaluating the requirements and/or the qualifications of the job posting.

For example, if a company is willing to substitute a college degree with more demonstrated professional experience relevant to the job requirements, wouldn't it make sense to state that on the job posting?

If you are a job seeker struggling with the concepts of an AI/ATS-compatible resumé, here are some helpful tips to consider before submitting it electronically.

Do your homework and be methodical!

• Don’t skim a job posting or just go off the job title itself. Carefully read through the description and the requirements of the role.  Ensure you are using relevant keywords and that your content is properly parsed. 
• Ensure your resumé does not contain page footers, reverse panels, icons, logos, photos, multiple columns, text boxes, and excessive lines across the page.
• Also stick with traditional fonts (Ariel, Garamond, Helvetica, and Tahoma are safe plays) and keep your sizes between 10 and 12 point for the bulk of the content. 
• Make sure your LinkedIn URL is on your resume.  Many recruiters and hiring managers will check a profile if the resume gets past the ATS (so make sure that's updated as well!)
• Ensure you have several resumé versions you can easily modify.

If your resumé is immediately rejected (even after you have had it checked by an ATS screening platform before submitting), try following up with the job poster on LinkedIn. (You may need their Premium version for this).

Also, consider reaching out to your network to see if you can connect with someone from the companies you've applied to.

If you are curious about whether your resumé is going to be screened by ATS go to the URL at the top of the page of a particular job posting and look for a vendor name (Workday, Taleo, Bullhorn, etc…)

If you identify one, then you know that the company is most likely using a third-party source to initially screen the resumé. 

It may not influence anything, but at least you have a heads-up that a "robot" may be the initial gatekeeper.

No system is perfect but with AI and advanced technology let's hope the future of initial candidate screenings doesn't regress either.

This integrated career strategist remains optimistic!