A recent question, posted on a networking site, asked about shortages of qualified talent, i.e. trying to identify which positions have the most openings. A few answers mentioned nursing, project management, and 3D and i3D positions.
One recruiter suggested, with passion, that there are plenty of qualified workers, but they are simply not being hired.
Now this may be due, in part, to a slow-down in the economy south of the Canadian border. But could it also be attributable, at least in part, to that fact that so many resumes are not communicating value? Could it be that recruiters despair of finding someone who, on paper at least, appears to have the ability to step into the applied-to role?
If you are pooh-poohing this notion, know this: there are far too many "general" resumes circulating. These claim "I can and will do almost anything." Why would an employer pay good money for someone you has little expertise and needs lots of training, when the better business decision would be to pay the same money for someone who is already an expert?
There are even more resumes circulating that are actually position descriptions masquerading as resumes. "Provided this, assisted with that." Wishy-washy language, non-specific and non-influential. Would you buy from the hamburger joint that stated "We sell hamburgers"? Or from the one that claimed "Mouth watering and juicy, people drive for miles out of their way for one of our 100% additive-free burgers"?
Just asking: could it be that 90 percent of resumes are unworthy of consideration? Having participated in a job fair this week, I speak from experience, and this indeed my opinion.