Which bit of "Don't apply for this postion if you ain't got the experience!" do candidates not understand?

I am sure I am not alone in receiving countless completely inappropriate and seemingly randomly sent CVs when advertising for roles - it kinda comes with the territory - but it never fails to amaze me that even when a specific warning that irrelevant and inappropriate CVs will not get a response is included in the advertisement that so many candidates think it is worthwhile sending you their CV despite the fact they have no suitable experience and in fact, in many cases, simply could not perform many of the functions of the job as a result. Even more amazing is how few candidates when asked to accompany their CVs with a short covering note explaining the relevance of their experience to the advertised role simply ignore this.

Fortunately I mainly work using passive search techniques which means I am in control of how much of my time I spend chasing wild geese (!) but I wonder how much time these candidates waste sending their CVs, it seems, willy-nilly to anyone and everyone. Do we blame ourselves as recruiters for operating now in an increasingly high-handed way and simply deleting CVs we don't care for - thus creating a 'mud against the wall’ desperation in job seekers? I know personally I have always tried to respond to every application I get even if it is a brief 'sorry but you are not suitable' email - sometimes giving reasonable detail for the rejection of the CV to help candidates in future applications - but this becomes increasingly hard when, despite the warnings that irrelevant applications may not receive the courtesy of a reply, candidates who have spent their lives selling white goods (for example) still send you CVs in application for a CEO of a software start-up opportunity.

I am not even going to start on how even candidates with some relevant experience fail to organise their CVs to show off this relevant experience. Have candidates so lost the ability to focus their job searches through desperation in the current economic climate? I do my best to help candidates improve their job hunting prospects but faced with this barrage of unintelligent mud-flinging what can one do?

Next Post >

Comment by Sandra McCartt on November 30, 2011 at 12:16pm: Actual quote from a candidate who applied for an IT position that is specifically requiring manhattan software experience in a specific industry.

"I don't have any experience with this software or in this industry but I would be very interested in this job."

And another one ,when I responded that I did not see any experience with the software reflected on his resume.

"I don't have that experience, just thought I would give it a try, :)"

I did a little experiment last month. Had an ad running for a management position in Atlanta. Filled it in about 8/9 days. Rather than kill the ad I posted a notice that the job had been filled but would continue to accept resumes for future positions. My thought was that would stem the flow of apps. Au contraire, they doubled and twice as many candidates called telling me they knew the job had been filled but wated to talk to me anyway. Never underestimate the power of advertising. Some of the ones I got after they knew the job was filled were better than the one I placed.

I am still trying to figure that one out. Maybe I got passive candidates when they knew there was no immediate opening. :)

Comment by Dyll Davies on November 30, 2011 at 12:41pm: Interesting. As we say in England "There's nowt so queer as folk!" (translation for non-Anglophones - "people are very funny beasts indeed!")

Comment by Michelle Jeffers on November 30, 2011 at 2:14pm: I figure if the candidate is obviously not qualified (for whatever reason....skills or location, etc.) that they must be applying to keep their UI (unemployment) benefits coming.

I'm not sure about other states, but Texas requires that beneficiaries do at least three work searches a week and they cannot turn down any offers else they lose their benefits and will possibly be required to repay any over payments.

Applying for roles they will not be considered for satisfies both of these requirements.

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on December 2, 2011 at 7:18pm: @Michelle in WA state it's 3 a week too. Almost anyone can find 3 jobs they're reasonably qualified for in a week if they try. (I used to work for unemployment office so I'm a little sensitive to this)

I think the main reason is because candidates really think it's a numbers game. Somehow looking for a job has turned into a lottery of sorts - if I just buy enough tickets then I'm bound to win. We all know it's BS but tell that to the candidates. They're not even reading the job ad anyway so any extra explanation is just to make us feel better about putting it in there. :)

I'll never forget the first time an unemployment counselor told a group of 50 recently unemployed people that they needed to apply to 100+ jobs a week. My reaction to that was not well received... :)

Comment by Michelle Jeffers on December 5, 2011 at 11:52am: I sometimes find that although the candidate is not qualified on paper, they might actually be qualified for the job...they just don't know to tailor their resume for each job posting....or they are just too lazy to.

I found out Friday that the TWC raised the required number of work searches to 5 per week. However, I am still inclined to disqualify a candidate who tells me s/he is only looking for a job because their UI benefits are about to run out.

Comment