> > About to register a company and I can tell you I won't
> be
> > hiring anyone (developer/graphic designer/web designer)
> > who dresses like a clown.
>
> Could you be a little more detailed about the dress-code
> of clowns? This is just too interesting.

Lol, I din't mean this in the literal sense. Was responding specifically to Morgan's point: "...not hire developers if the color
> r of their interview clothes doesn't properly complement
> their eyes and complexion." There were hints of exaggerations and sarcasm in his statement, so I tried to use an equally extreme example in response.

What I actually meant is if I advertise a post and the candidate comes to the interview dressed in jeans and a wife beater, that interview will not last more than 10 minutes and I *will* definitely disregard all the achievements listed in his/her resume.

> And most positions are obtained through networking and connections, not resumes.

Really? I couldn't find any data to support this. I do know that in the companies I have worked for, the vast majority are not hired via networking and connections. Those that are sourced in that fashion, still went through a stringent hiring process that included evaluating their resumes.

It happened to me once. I contacted the CTO of a company who knew me and my work. I was as perfect a fit for the two positions which required some very specialized skills. Still, I went through the entire process. I did receive two offers but I could have screwed the pooch anywhere along the line.

That said, I am a firm believer in the value of networks and connections for sourcing. I have worked at several employers who incentivize this by offering large bonuses for referrals. Even then, this type of hiring rarely occurs.

Some company situations lend themselves more to network sourcing, but an employer would be foolish to ignore any available data about a prospective employee, including his resume.

> Here's one of many simple reasons why the quality of my
> work and the quality of my resume may differ:
> I've been with the same employer for over twenty years.
> Therefore I have twenty years of experience in my work
> but have never written a resume in that time.

If you need to use a new technology in your job, I'm assuming you wouldn't just wing it, but would first learn enough about to avoid pitfalls of the technology. And no doubt, you would carefully test your code; you might also ask a co-worker to review your code.

Similarly, were you to suddenly find that you needed to write a resume, I'm assuming you would practice similar diligence in researching basic resume practices, and would take the time to proofread your resume, and perhaps have a trusted confidant review it before sending it out.

Robert,

> Beware candidates who do it just to pay for a
> lifestyle.

Indeed.

> It seems entirely incongruous that a great
> > developer, (coding is just one aspect of development),
> > would represent himself as a poor communicator who is
> > either oblivious to, or careless toward quality.
> Most "resume reviews" seek only to enforce the format du
> jour. "Poor communication" mostly boils down to violating
> said format du jour. Hirers who care about such trivia
> aren't worth working for. Shallow is as shallow does.

That's not what I am saying. I stated that format preferences should NOT be misconstrued as poor communication (although I have seen some really bad formatting!).

A resume that communicates well is information-rich. It tells a story about the candidate.

> A resume's only purpose is to convey both past work and
> future efforts.

That's nonsense. First, You can't covey future efforts. I think what you mean is that the facts in a resume communicate future potential. Second, a resume is a work product - something created by the candidate - and therefore a reflection of some of her abilities. The foolish candidate may believe that the sole purpose is to document her past work, but the skilled reviewer will glean much more from it.

> That doesn't mean Joyce is a poor
> communicator, only that his format doesn't meet the
> demands of lazy readers.

Grammar and spelling are not format. Neither are incomplete sentences, ambiguous statements, vague descriptions, or missing data. What if we never found out what happened to the fisherman in "The Old Man and the Sea?" That would be poor communication. The book is about a guy and a fish, yet it is a fascinating story. The critics took a while to warm up to Hemmingway's style, but they could not deny his storytelling ability.

> Again, you really, really, really haven't defined poor
> communication in an objective way.

Communication is not objective, but I think there are some key indicators of poor communication in the context of a resume. I mentioned most of them above and in the article. If the resume doesn't convey what the user did, that's a fundamental problem. Beyond that, if the resume shows that the candidate is careless, leaves out important information, cannot put together complete concepts, and cannot convey the value he brought to positions in his job history, that's bad communication. It also is evidence of broader issues.

Final point, a well-written resume doesn't get you a job. But it may just get you to the next phase of the interview process.

David,
I agree. A sloppy resume speaks more than a neat resume. That said, there seems to be a correlation between sloppy and poor content, and neat and solid content.

I am always wary of the sweet smelling candidate that is really a stinker. They can do more harm to a team/organization than a plain old bad employee.