Hi VND!
I was hoping that you would defend your points. I cannot use your guide as an all purpose error free short listing guide- freedom from fake resumes.
I would be glad if you did win this debate because everyone would be able to use your findings as a general guide. :D :D
Please address my concerns.
Regards,
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
15I was hoping that you would defend your points. I cannot use your guide as an all purpose error free short listing guide- freedom from fake resumes.
I would be glad if you did win this debate because everyone would be able to use your findings as a general guide. :D :D
Please address my concerns.
Regards,
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
I was trying not to defend my point because my previous observation of defending caused a silence in people trying to bring out more points. Well, if you want me to, here I go.
Before starting off, I would like to re-re-iterate the
I am going in sequence on how resumes (usually) appear. Parsing down, the key identifying factors of individuals are:
1) Name, 2) Contact Details 3) Date of birth
Name is static and hence cannot change, but a person intending not to disclose the full name on his resume (NOT an online application, is .... fishy :roll:
Contact details contain a) Phone numbers (residence, mobile, office) b) Email addresses c) Residence Address
Acceptable that people are on the run today and hence providing just the mobile number is fine. But I could be sharing a phone with another unemployed room-mate of mine. Email addresses, I have got 10 or so personally. These two, do not help in associating anyone's identity with anything.
There are non-fakes who follow the above pattern as well, but they tend to fall in the 5% mentioned:
I guess my points about the name, email address and the residence address and date of birth etc. is (evidently/logically) clear.
Your point about absence of address is valid, but the statement [Quote] Moreover, I have observed that if the combination of the above is
present, the chances that the candidate holds fake experience is
almost 95%.
For large scale resume processing systems (or recruitment software), identifying duplicates in the database is done by the points I have mentioned (also, the passport number is considered). For those who intentionally do it, (try to beat the box) software tools are very effective. But recruiters who have to rely on their own methods, these prove helpful to a large extent. (Hence the 5% exception to the rule.)
At times there are those that mention client names as confidential. Those are absolutely acceptable. But providing incomplete, or rather, ambiguous names, well.. I guess the point is clear.
It is for purely left for oneself to understand:
1) Resumes are to market oneself for a job. If a person doesn't pay attention to providing accurate details, you can assume or conclude the sincerity one can expect from employing him/her
2) I still remember exactly the branch I specialized in. If for a PG, for instance MBA, I would definitely not forget mentioning whether I did a dual specialization or a single one, and what the course actually was.
Yes, that is a possibility. But, this was following the points mentioned above. Meaning, for a candidate who has been identified matching the list, the chances that he would say he is busy (assuming that he is actually not employed) is 90%
That part follows the basic questioning which the candidate is most likely to fail. And questions usually pertain to those that the questioner (the recruiter) is comfortable asking and is fully aware of the intricacies pertaining to it.
BTW: I have had many recruiters, who used this as a tool to eliminate candidates, do boardline calls to confirm employment status(s) of candidate(s). And surprisingly(not to me), this has had a 100% accuracy. Since the sampling volume has been in the order of the 50s, I cannot claim a 6 sigma accuracy in it because the recruiters have actually started using this to sideline resumes and not waste time on talking to them.
At the same time, a lot of time is saved from investing time on fakers. I guess hard-core recruiters would agree to the point that losing 1 guy in a bulk of 50 (with 'fake looking' resumes) is more cost (in terms of time and effort) effective than talking to the 49 actual fakes and spending a least of 2 man-hours on processing them.
Any further comments? I was hoping that recruiters would, out of their experiences, add more points to the list.
Anyways, thanks for the post. I am glad this thread is live again!!
Thanks again.
PL&E
vndixit
From United States, San Diego
Before starting off, I would like to re-re-iterate the
I am going in sequence on how resumes (usually) appear. Parsing down, the key identifying factors of individuals are:
1) Name, 2) Contact Details 3) Date of birth
Name is static and hence cannot change, but a person intending not to disclose the full name on his resume (NOT an online application, is .... fishy :roll:
Contact details contain a) Phone numbers (residence, mobile, office) b) Email addresses c) Residence Address
Acceptable that people are on the run today and hence providing just the mobile number is fine. But I could be sharing a phone with another unemployed room-mate of mine. Email addresses, I have got 10 or so personally. These two, do not help in associating anyone's identity with anything.
There are non-fakes who follow the above pattern as well, but they tend to fall in the 5% mentioned:
I guess my points about the name, email address and the residence address and date of birth etc. is (evidently/logically) clear.
Your point about absence of address is valid, but the statement [Quote] Moreover, I have observed that if the combination of the above is
present, the chances that the candidate holds fake experience is
almost 95%.
For large scale resume processing systems (or recruitment software), identifying duplicates in the database is done by the points I have mentioned (also, the passport number is considered). For those who intentionally do it, (try to beat the box) software tools are very effective. But recruiters who have to rely on their own methods, these prove helpful to a large extent. (Hence the 5% exception to the rule.)
At times there are those that mention client names as confidential. Those are absolutely acceptable. But providing incomplete, or rather, ambiguous names, well.. I guess the point is clear.
It is for purely left for oneself to understand:
1) Resumes are to market oneself for a job. If a person doesn't pay attention to providing accurate details, you can assume or conclude the sincerity one can expect from employing him/her
2) I still remember exactly the branch I specialized in. If for a PG, for instance MBA, I would definitely not forget mentioning whether I did a dual specialization or a single one, and what the course actually was.
Yes, that is a possibility. But, this was following the points mentioned above. Meaning, for a candidate who has been identified matching the list, the chances that he would say he is busy (assuming that he is actually not employed) is 90%
That part follows the basic questioning which the candidate is most likely to fail. And questions usually pertain to those that the questioner (the recruiter) is comfortable asking and is fully aware of the intricacies pertaining to it.
BTW: I have had many recruiters, who used this as a tool to eliminate candidates, do boardline calls to confirm employment status(s) of candidate(s). And surprisingly(not to me), this has had a 100% accuracy. Since the sampling volume has been in the order of the 50s, I cannot claim a 6 sigma accuracy in it because the recruiters have actually started using this to sideline resumes and not waste time on talking to them.
At the same time, a lot of time is saved from investing time on fakers. I guess hard-core recruiters would agree to the point that losing 1 guy in a bulk of 50 (with 'fake looking' resumes) is more cost (in terms of time and effort) effective than talking to the 49 actual fakes and spending a least of 2 man-hours on processing them.
Any further comments? I was hoping that recruiters would, out of their experiences, add more points to the list.
Anyways, thanks for the post. I am glad this thread is live again!!
Thanks again.
PL&E
vndixit
From United States, San Diego
Dear Mr. V N. Dixit,
The time I have been in this Site, I have seen a number of Posts coming up with how to eliminate the menace of Fake Resumes. I have siad it earlier I will spell it out again.
The majority of Corporates especially in IT have not kept it in thier top 3 priorities.
The IT Company Management are only interested in completing their projects and looking at their Profit line.
The IT professionals are more interested in making a scapegoat out of HR by passing the blame on faulty recruitment.
This is all but a process of making HR Punching Bag. Show me one IT Company which has sacked the Techinal Persons of the Interview Panel for making a wrong technical assessment? Sack the Project manager for being an absolute idiot in making a wrong selection. Just watch the fun. Do it once, and the fakers will get reduced drastically.
We are not blood hounds or police that we will have to sniff everywhere. Neither are we Sherlock Holmes. What we need is a very good technical panel which will be able to screen a person.
As long as recruitment is seen as a responsibilty for HR only, these will continue to exist.
I would just like to ask you one question?
Suppose your Technical Head had selected a candidate for a very important project of one of your most valuable Customer,which has already been delayed. The Techincal Head sates he is the most suitable guy for this project. Now, when you asked for experience certificates. He gives the last two and says the rest is not there and neither can he provide you with any proof. Will you as HR, be able to cancel the selection? [I would like to mention here whenever I have asked this question except the Top Few IT Companies most of the times I had received No as an answer except for TCS where this is not applicable because they have a huge bench strength.]
Kind Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
The time I have been in this Site, I have seen a number of Posts coming up with how to eliminate the menace of Fake Resumes. I have siad it earlier I will spell it out again.
The majority of Corporates especially in IT have not kept it in thier top 3 priorities.
The IT Company Management are only interested in completing their projects and looking at their Profit line.
The IT professionals are more interested in making a scapegoat out of HR by passing the blame on faulty recruitment.
This is all but a process of making HR Punching Bag. Show me one IT Company which has sacked the Techinal Persons of the Interview Panel for making a wrong technical assessment? Sack the Project manager for being an absolute idiot in making a wrong selection. Just watch the fun. Do it once, and the fakers will get reduced drastically.
We are not blood hounds or police that we will have to sniff everywhere. Neither are we Sherlock Holmes. What we need is a very good technical panel which will be able to screen a person.
As long as recruitment is seen as a responsibilty for HR only, these will continue to exist.
I would just like to ask you one question?
Suppose your Technical Head had selected a candidate for a very important project of one of your most valuable Customer,which has already been delayed. The Techincal Head sates he is the most suitable guy for this project. Now, when you asked for experience certificates. He gives the last two and says the rest is not there and neither can he provide you with any proof. Will you as HR, be able to cancel the selection? [I would like to mention here whenever I have asked this question except the Top Few IT Companies most of the times I had received No as an answer except for TCS where this is not applicable because they have a huge bench strength.]
Kind Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Hi!
At this point I would like to narrate a very personal experience.
One of my friends/course mates/batch mates was a very good student - the best in may be the three or four batches taken together.
She was over enthusiastic and over concerned with campus placements.
She sent her resumes to different placement agencies. Her resume did not get shortlisted.
Here CV was fine. She had the skills. She had the right BL. She could not figure out what went wrong. We did a little analysis and then realized that it had some of the problems mentioned by VND.
However, if she were given a chance there would be no one who would fit the job like her.
Thank God and Thank Management, that we had the scope for campus placements. Otherwise she would never be absorbed by an MNC.
Regards,
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
At this point I would like to narrate a very personal experience.
One of my friends/course mates/batch mates was a very good student - the best in may be the three or four batches taken together.
She was over enthusiastic and over concerned with campus placements.
She sent her resumes to different placement agencies. Her resume did not get shortlisted.
Here CV was fine. She had the skills. She had the right BL. She could not figure out what went wrong. We did a little analysis and then realized that it had some of the problems mentioned by VND.
However, if she were given a chance there would be no one who would fit the job like her.
Thank God and Thank Management, that we had the scope for campus placements. Otherwise she would never be absorbed by an MNC.
Regards,
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
:lol: The purpose of this thread is lost with your post. Here, we are trying to discuss what could be points to eliminate resumes as the beginning of the recruitment process and not to discuss on who is to blame for a bad/wrong hire.
HR and recruitment are now being divided into two different verticals in many companies (and thats to the good of it). A wrong hire made is completely the mistake of the hiring/interview panel, which includes the HR as well. If it is about discussion who's to blame, then I suggest that a new thread for the same (and a good name would be "Blame Game")
To err is human, and hence there is no way anyone can be blamed for a wrong hire. (unless it was deliberately done).
And I would have to contradict on a lot of things that you have quoted:
The process that we used in my last employment involved a background investigation. Only proof of the last employment was required to be submitted during joining. Rest was required to be detailed in an investigation form. The process was effective. We have had demotions and terminations following that. We had to be ruthless, as some would say. But, as an organization, we kept upto our integrity and values.
I hope this clears the points. Please note that this thread is about how recruiters can eliminate resumes at a screening level to minimise the time wasted in the recruitment process and not about making bad/wrong hires, and/or who is to blame for the same.
PL&E
vndixit
From United States, San Diego
HR and recruitment are now being divided into two different verticals in many companies (and thats to the good of it). A wrong hire made is completely the mistake of the hiring/interview panel, which includes the HR as well. If it is about discussion who's to blame, then I suggest that a new thread for the same (and a good name would be "Blame Game")
To err is human, and hence there is no way anyone can be blamed for a wrong hire. (unless it was deliberately done).
And I would have to contradict on a lot of things that you have quoted:
The process that we used in my last employment involved a background investigation. Only proof of the last employment was required to be submitted during joining. Rest was required to be detailed in an investigation form. The process was effective. We have had demotions and terminations following that. We had to be ruthless, as some would say. But, as an organization, we kept upto our integrity and values.
I hope this clears the points. Please note that this thread is about how recruiters can eliminate resumes at a screening level to minimise the time wasted in the recruitment process and not about making bad/wrong hires, and/or who is to blame for the same.
PL&E
vndixit
From United States, San Diego
Hi!
I am sure Swastik would like to defend his post. He has highlighted the root cause of such problems.
This is not just about recruitment, hr or even the technical head taken separately, but the issue may actually relate to co-ordinating problems with the top management.
As far as recruiting people goes, its similar to having money(read purchasing power) to buy gold(the best and the most suited for that position) but since we did not have the right knowledge we ended up with silver instead(An average recruit).
Recruiters have targets to fill, but if they keep supplying average people they will loose goodwill and business in the long run.
Regards,
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
I am sure Swastik would like to defend his post. He has highlighted the root cause of such problems.
This is not just about recruitment, hr or even the technical head taken separately, but the issue may actually relate to co-ordinating problems with the top management.
As far as recruiting people goes, its similar to having money(read purchasing power) to buy gold(the best and the most suited for that position) but since we did not have the right knowledge we ended up with silver instead(An average recruit).
Recruiters have targets to fill, but if they keep supplying average people they will loose goodwill and business in the long run.
Regards,
Shyamali
From India, Nasik
Dear Mr. Dixit,
I am not trying to start a blame game, but what I have stated practically happens.
Let us ask ourselves:
Why are we interested in eliminating fake resumes?
Once you answer this question exhaustively, we all we will be able to see that, the effort and cost put in is far greater for checking the credentials than having a fool-proof Technical Selection Team.
In one of my previous organisation, I had stressed and was able to implement the concept and it was so successful. The Technical Team could detect any fake resume and the rate of success was about 96%.
Here, I would like to admit that as HR we are not technically equipped to catch fakers. The fakers you have mentioned are novices and they generally get caught, but the highly specialised fakers are the real dangers. They are so good and efficient at faking that they only get caught in time of crisis situations. They are not only dangerous but are highly destructive for the Company.
Like for taking Plant HR, we use to ask how do you enlist a worker with an ESI Doctor/ Dispensary?
Unless you have done it personally in West Bengal you will never be able to answer it.
So, instead of trying to screen resumes, we put more thrust in framing the right questions which will test your experiences.
Yes, the novices got automatically caught within two minutes, while the experts took some more time.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
I am not trying to start a blame game, but what I have stated practically happens.
Let us ask ourselves:
Why are we interested in eliminating fake resumes?
Once you answer this question exhaustively, we all we will be able to see that, the effort and cost put in is far greater for checking the credentials than having a fool-proof Technical Selection Team.
In one of my previous organisation, I had stressed and was able to implement the concept and it was so successful. The Technical Team could detect any fake resume and the rate of success was about 96%.
Here, I would like to admit that as HR we are not technically equipped to catch fakers. The fakers you have mentioned are novices and they generally get caught, but the highly specialised fakers are the real dangers. They are so good and efficient at faking that they only get caught in time of crisis situations. They are not only dangerous but are highly destructive for the Company.
Like for taking Plant HR, we use to ask how do you enlist a worker with an ESI Doctor/ Dispensary?
Unless you have done it personally in West Bengal you will never be able to answer it.
So, instead of trying to screen resumes, we put more thrust in framing the right questions which will test your experiences.
Yes, the novices got automatically caught within two minutes, while the experts took some more time.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Hi, A good way to identify fakes without wasting too much time is via a tele-interview. It is a good way to shortlist. There are loopholes, but they can be taken care of. Regards, Shyamali
From India, Nasik
From India, Nasik
Dear Swastik73
I appreciate your post and your view, doubtlessly. But the whole idea of starting this thread was to understand what fellow recruiters think are patterns in resumes that are typically those that are found in fakes. This would further help recruiters in reducing the time invested in the entire recruitment process.
For instance, any candidate in my experience, adhering to any recruitment process undergoes a least of one recruiter screening (15-20 mnts), two technical interviews (2*45mnts), one HR interview (30mnts). This sums up close to 2.5 hours. Other than these, the overhead investment of scheduling interviews and meeting the candidates, coordinating the interviews etc would take another 1.5 hours or so.
Assuming a mid-sized organization, or a small, fast growing one looking at 20 people a month (assuming replacements and not expansion head-counts) a team of 5 recruiters would have to talk to 20*(inverse of the hit-ratio) [For non-services company, where quality is most important, the average ratio (across all positions) may vary close to 1/200 +/-10%], in which situation, a recruiter would be required to talk to 200*20 people = 4000 people. If each discussion were to last for 15mnts, each recruiter would be talking for, (4000/4)/5=200 hours.
:) Mathematically, thats just too much. Assuming 8 hours of work, without breaks, every recruiter would have to just talk for 25 working day, thats more than a month in the IT calendar(roughly 22 working days a month).
Above is all theory though! Still, with the amount of variance, and also assuming that all candidates ARE interested, and that with a 50% offer-join ratio, the amount of time invested would be more or less equal to the calculation.
Hence, I feel that a resume level screen/elimination would be more than essential for recruiters to recruit more effectively. (At least in India where the hiring market is not mature enough, and the hiring needs are very high)
:) Thanks for bringing this thread back to life!!
From United States, San Diego
I appreciate your post and your view, doubtlessly. But the whole idea of starting this thread was to understand what fellow recruiters think are patterns in resumes that are typically those that are found in fakes. This would further help recruiters in reducing the time invested in the entire recruitment process.
For instance, any candidate in my experience, adhering to any recruitment process undergoes a least of one recruiter screening (15-20 mnts), two technical interviews (2*45mnts), one HR interview (30mnts). This sums up close to 2.5 hours. Other than these, the overhead investment of scheduling interviews and meeting the candidates, coordinating the interviews etc would take another 1.5 hours or so.
Assuming a mid-sized organization, or a small, fast growing one looking at 20 people a month (assuming replacements and not expansion head-counts) a team of 5 recruiters would have to talk to 20*(inverse of the hit-ratio) [For non-services company, where quality is most important, the average ratio (across all positions) may vary close to 1/200 +/-10%], in which situation, a recruiter would be required to talk to 200*20 people = 4000 people. If each discussion were to last for 15mnts, each recruiter would be talking for, (4000/4)/5=200 hours.
:) Mathematically, thats just too much. Assuming 8 hours of work, without breaks, every recruiter would have to just talk for 25 working day, thats more than a month in the IT calendar(roughly 22 working days a month).
Above is all theory though! Still, with the amount of variance, and also assuming that all candidates ARE interested, and that with a 50% offer-join ratio, the amount of time invested would be more or less equal to the calculation.
Hence, I feel that a resume level screen/elimination would be more than essential for recruiters to recruit more effectively. (At least in India where the hiring market is not mature enough, and the hiring needs are very high)
:) Thanks for bringing this thread back to life!!
From United States, San Diego
Hi VND & Radika..
I strongly disagree what you people were discussing regarding the Project done on hospital Management etc...
I do understand these project are like desk project and not real time project... But coming to a conclusion that people who have done Hospital, inventory project are fake information in their profile...
FYI: Even I have done my B.Tech Project in Smart Card Enabled Hospital Management.. And Even i Compltd my MBA(HR) and wrking wth a well knwn company in b'glre as HR Executive handling the recruitment...
I completely agree VND was discussing .. but Radika I guess you are in wrong perception...
THanks
Ilango
From India, Bangalore
I strongly disagree what you people were discussing regarding the Project done on hospital Management etc...
I do understand these project are like desk project and not real time project... But coming to a conclusion that people who have done Hospital, inventory project are fake information in their profile...
FYI: Even I have done my B.Tech Project in Smart Card Enabled Hospital Management.. And Even i Compltd my MBA(HR) and wrking wth a well knwn company in b'glre as HR Executive handling the recruitment...
I completely agree VND was discussing .. but Radika I guess you are in wrong perception...
THanks
Ilango
From India, Bangalore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
HR model resumes.doc
McGraw-Hill - Resumes for the 50 Job Hunter with Sample Cover Letters.pdf