or gender of a candidate before meeting with them. The theory being of course that whatever criteria you might discriminate against them through a video is the same you would use upon meeting them. Plus you can determine often someone’s ethnicity from their resume by the school they attended and certainly their age by noting how long they have been in the workforce."
My response - INTERESTING - How about:
In Canada each Province has its own Human Rights Laws that are slightly different from eachother. Some jurisdictions protect workers from discrimination on additional grounds, such as language, social status, or previous convictions for which a pardon has been granted.
I am in Alberta, within our specific Provincial Human Rights Act, Section 7 and 8 address discrimination re: employment practices, and goes on in Section 8 to address applications and advertisements re: employment.
I agree – discrimination can occur based on judgements resulting from reading an applicant’s name, educational background (country credentials were attained in), previous work experience etc.
The question then is, will Video Resumes increase the frequency of discriminatory practices?
For example: An applicant’s name on a paper resume leads the employer to think they may have a language barrier challenge (i.e. English as a Second Language), the employer still brings them in for an interview because their experience has their interest. Versus, the employer receives a video resume from the same applicant and finds the applicant’s accent in the video to be cumbersome and think their customers will get frustrated if they had to deal with that applicant as a representative of their company. So they decid…
ly valuable and will only continue to grow in popularity.
Of the several types of videos within the hiring space, I think the least effective and least valuable are video resumes - for several reasons that will be discussed in parts:
1. Their potential for discrimination
2. The time they add to the hiring process, not streamline it
3. Who they are designed to benefit
I believe video resumes can absolutely increase the potential for discrimination in the hiring process for 2 primary reasons. First, because of when they enter the hiring process and second, because of the process standards demanded by the governing bodies that regulate employers.
A video resume is typically submitted during the application stage of the hiring process. By definition a video resume is a video created by a candidate and made available to an employer in an effort to help the candidate stand out.
At this stage in the process, no "objective" decision has been made about a candidate and therefore the propensity to make a facially discriminate decision is higher.
Which brings me to my 2nd point: employers have to follow a standard process in order to adhere to regulatory statutes - offering every candidate an equal opportunity for employment.
One of the largest problems with video resumes is that no process has been defined for how an employer can manage a standard hiring practice that includes video resumes while also minimizing any potential for discrimination. Large organizations mitigate the risk of discrimination claims by having set processes that demand a candidate is “objectively” qualified by their “paper” resume before moving on to the next screening step.
Until that process can be defined, I think video resumes will continue to be considered controversial. For those who disagree that this is a problem please let me know what F100 company is using video resumes as a standard part of their process, because to my knowledge, none of them are. (though I would love to be wrong here!)
That being said, I think video – not video resumes, but video in some forms – can successfully be added into the hiring process. They simply have to fit into the process in a way that mitigates the risk of discrimination and significantly improves the recruitment process…
…Please stand by for Part II about how video resumes made the hiring process more cumbersome, not less……
o a video resume is designed to benefit (and why it most likely isn’t you).
Briefly, a review of the definition of a video resume: a video resume is a video created by a candidate and made available to an employer in an effort to help the candidate stand out.
There are 3 members of the hiring ecosystem: the candidate, the recruiter and the employer. Considering the definition of a video resume, it is no surprise that it can benefit the candidate. A candidate eagerly searching for a job will likely explore many opportunities to “stand out.” If this video resume helps the candidate gain attention in a positive way, this is a benefit.
As a side note, all of the video resume production companies that have popped up recently also benefit from video resumes because they are getting paid a handsome amount to produce these videos for the candidates.
But what about the recruiter and the employer? By definition of a video resume, the recruiter has no part in the video resume process, therefore, no benefit. The employer may benefit by getting a better view to the candidate, but this will never be more than a “one-off.” Not only is there no way for an employer to ensure compliance with video resumes (part I) but it does not make sense for an employer to view a video resume for every single candidate that applies (part II). The time added to the hiring process of viewing a 5 minute video for every single candidate that applied is incredibly cumbersome. (Imagine only being able to review 12 candidate resumes/video resumes per hour)
So it seems that the only beneficiary of a video resume is a candidate. And this candidate is creating this video resume and submitting it into a process that they don't know will even accept the video resume. For a product to become successful it needs to benefit all parties involved in a well defined way.
Therefore, video resumes will never become mainstream.…