Signal to Noise Ratio - How "Noisy" is Your Resume?

question-mark-vector-899320.jpg

I’m reading #TerryO’Reilly’s recent book on marketing. Titled #ThisIKnow, its subtitle “Marketing Lessons from Under the Influence” refers to his long-running #CBCRadio show on marketing. (Think of the irony: the radio show with no ads runs a show about ads! Love it!)

O’Reilly and #SethGodin, another master marketer, are favourite writers. I’ve often written on a Seth Godin blog post in the past, and this morning I opened another that I need to share. It’s titled Signal to Noise Ratio. It’s about substance vs. perhaps, nonsense. Or juicy info vs. boring? A strong signal, good info, overcomes or cuts through noise.

His blog brought to mind something I had learned in a 2-part webinar I took earlier this year. The webinar dealt with #applicanttrackingsystems, or ATS, the software that many - and increasing numbers of - employers use to evaluate resumes. They use ATS to whittle down the applicants to be considered to a manageable number.

As ATS evolve - they’ve been around since around 1998 (!) - they improve. Once able to “read” only plain text documents in Courier font (that’s the one in which letters are widely spaced), most now read PDF or Word documents in a variety of fonts.

The newest improvement is AI or #artificialintelligence. Programming artificial intelligence into #ATS will be a welcome improvement. AI will once again allow the resume’s writer to use some creativity, use synonyms, and not worry so much about the lack of interpretation or “reading between the lines” that has characterized ATS to date.

And AI, I learned, identifies a noise ratio! I do not know details, but the most up-to-date ATS (there is more than one product in the market) somehow recognize “fluff.” For this reason, your #resume must have a strong “signal” to noise ratio.

What is “noise” in a resume? I’m not 100% certain until those who conduct ATS research are ready to host another resume-writers’ ATS-update webinar. Maybe I’ll have concrete info in 2019.

However, here’s what I do know, judging by my clients’ #jobsearch successes.

  • Your resume cannot, should not, must not “read” like a job posting. That’s not a resume’s function. That’s a job posting.

  • Your resume must be personalized to your actual experience. Personalizing your resume means you include facts that describe your work environment, provide context that sets the premise for the story, and otherwise paint a quick but useful picture of each position you have held.

Your resume simply has to dig deeper to define your value. There’s little value in creating a list of the tasks you did in each job! Judging by the many resumes I have reviewed in my business, that tactic will only put you on par with the vast majority of applicants. That will not inspire a recruiter to call you. Nor will it get you past those ATS that are enabled with AI.

So how do you feel your resume scores in the noise to signal ration? Are you sending a resounding signal that will inspire a recruiter to select you as a potential interviewee? Or is the noise overwhelmingly keeping you from that coveted list?

Interview Follies

I've heard it said that the job search is a numbers game. I believe it was Tony Beshara in the Job Search Solution.

It's not enough to send one resume; you must send many. You can't count your success just because you are prepping for two interviews; you must keep applying, as a recent client confided.

My client emailed: "

Wrapped up my interviews (whew). I did well but not sure that I am what they are looking for. One job isn't what they advertised (they are basically looking for a graphic designer) and the other, well the manager who interviewed me was totally disorganised, and made it pretty clear that i wasn't what she was looking for but she wanted to meet me (and then proceeded to read through my resume and writing samples while I sat there)."

I cannot justify why a job posting would claim the department is looking for a Manager of Digital Marketing when the team needs a graphic designer. It doesn't make sense from any point of view.

The second scenario I can explain to some degree. Perhaps there were few good candidates and the recruiter expanded the parameters so that at least five or so candidates could be interviewed. It's a bit of a "job security" strategy.

Sure it's not fair, but it's reality. And hey, it gave my client an opportunity to practice her interview skills (once the manager read through her submission).

It's a similar case with resumes. Not all land in bonafide opportunities. Some jobs are already pegged for an internal (or external) candidate, but to meet corporate policy, the recruitment process must be adhered to. Other job postings are ongoing recruitments for job pools or positions with exceptional turnover; you might hear in six months and you might not hear at all. Others may be "fishing expeditions" by companies who want to see what kind of talent exists out there.

Such is the way of recruitment. Unless you want to don a cape and take on the role of crusading for reform, there's no point in getting upset. Remember that recruitment is a numbers game and keep on going!

Of course, if you are not landing any interviews at all, perhaps you need a champion in your corner. If so, New Leaf would be honoured to work on your behalf.