Comment by David DeCapua on February 3, 2011 at 5:08pm

I've been in search, recruitng and staffing for 15 years. Like you, I noticed job seekers becoming more savvy and using technology to their benefit. It occured to me that the paper resumes days are numbered whether I chose to admit it or not. The concerns you noted are spot on - your video must be consistent, professional and short! That's why I created TalentRooster.com - we've addressed all the concerns and made it very easy. Check it out - I'd love to hear what you think.

Comment by Brandon S. Ellison, MBA, PHR on February 3, 2011 at 9:13pm

I think the addition of Youtube to the scene is a positive sign for the video supplement. I like the idea of a candidate introducing themselves with a video executive summary. It would be a nice way to demonstrate your professional and communication skills. However, with the technological capabilities being so new, I foresee legal problems because videos show a lot of information about a candidate that recruiters are prohibited from making hiring decisions based on. For now, I think larger companies may shy away from considering video supplements because of those implications. Any interesting conversation, nonetheless, and I am excited to see where it goes.

Comment by Penni Barefoot on February 4, 2011 at 11:20am

I don't like this idea at all. I feel companies are opening themselves up to a potentail lawsuit from the candidate. How easy would it be for a candidate to say "X company viewed my resume video and didn't hire me because I'm overweight, a certain ethnic group, not a certain ethnic group, I'm a woman, etc, etc. The list could go on and on.

Comment by Karen Lynn on February 4, 2011 at 12:14pm

Way to stay current David!  A 60 second blink is a value bonanza for busy professionals who want 'to get on with it'.

 

I can't believe we are still bemoaning the legal risk of public visuals like pictures, videos, on-line presence, etc. in this postmodern digital era. If someone is looking for young, pliable professionals and decides I'm not a good fit because my face reads as over 40, then I say, "Thank goodness they didn't waist my time with an interview cause working for that mindset wouldn't be a good fit for me."  I think the majority of today's candidates value the right fit too!  From a candidates vantage point: Video resumes might be a great way to weed out folks not likely to hire them anyway.

 

Video simply speeds up the process for everyone serious about meaningful work.

Comment by Lisa Switzer on February 10, 2011 at 12:36pm

Here's a twist from a peer who posted on my wordpress blog to the same entry:

R. Cullison wrote: ......"

As far as discriminatory practices, the EEOC said you are allowed to learn the ethnicity, age, 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

Comment by Lisa Switzer on February 10, 2011 at 12:39pm

Continued:

....So they decide not to invite them in for a face to face interview...regardless of any relevant experience that may have caught their interest at first...

 

Would this example become more common and is it discriminatory?

Comment by David DeCapua on February 10, 2011 at 3:45pm

Lisa:  Please don't mention that the EEOC is ok with video resumes (although you are 100% correct)!!  I love the fact that so many people are stuck behind that paradigm - it's been a huge competitive advantage for TalentRooster!!  Did you also know that you shouldn't swim for 30 minutes after eating.... 

Comment by Suzanne Levison on February 24, 2011 at 1:34pm

My Search Market, many prospects are involved in some way with video..so, presenting of resume is just an extension of "walking the walk, talking the talk" to them. Senior Exec's seem to be OK  when presented with a video resume of a presented candidate. Still, one must be clear, concise, brief, to the point with content

Comment