The Resume Black Hole

A black hole is a region in space from which nothing can escape. The Theory of Relativity predicts that this phenomenon exists when an extremely compact mass deforms the spacetime continuum so that its gravitational pull absorbs all the light that hits the horizon. It is “black” because it reflects nothing and appears to be a “hole” because nothing can be seen in its vastness. The black hole in Galaxy M87, one of our nearest neighbors in the universe at a distance of only 50 million light-years, has been measured to have a mass of over 6 billion of our suns. It is real, it is measurable and it is definitely there.

The analogous resume black hole is a derogatory term applied, sometimes quite deservedly, to an inefficient hiring organization. It is real, it is measurable and it definitely exists. But is everything attributed to a black hole really a resume sucking beast in the employment universe or is it a perception based on frustration, disappointment and unrealistic expectations? Actually, the answer to that question is that it is both. There are definitely problems in efficiencies of some companies that by practice never give any feedback to applicants. It is a horrible situation and does nothing to build a recruitment brand that would cause any candidate to want to work there. At a minimum there should be some sort of acknowledgement that the resume was received into a database. Since most acknowledgements are impersonal computer-generated emails, it is only marginally better than not knowing at all. Some systems will auto-generate a second response when an applicant’s status is changed on hiring someone else. Since the answer is “no” the perception is often that the black hole ate the resume.

I have written a series of ten articles instructing job seekers to think like a recruiter (The Job Seeker’s Guide To The Galaxy And Other Places), but I have never given specific details on any search campaign to demonstrate the complexity from the other side of the table. One of the primary reasons is that it would be very naïve to assume that every search follows the same methodology and the technical detail of every job is different. I will give one simple example for a search for a Director of Human Resources, but it should be understood that even this could have been totally different in another environment.

1. Total candidates – 166 (100%). This includes all sources including direct applicants, recommendations, referrals and deep sourcing.
2. Prescreened – 92 (55.4%). Primarily by computer in this case. The remaining 74 are not discarded but remain in the database for another opening.
3. Fine Screened – 16 (9.6%). Primarily by recruiter. Again, the remaining 76 are tossed back into the pond to be caught again another day.
4. Short Listed – 7 (4.2%). Selected by in-depth phone interview, after which two self-eliminated, one for money and one for location.
5. Face-to-face Interview – 3 (1.8%). Selected by hiring manager from short list.
6. Hired – 1 (0.6%).

Think like a recruiter. For a quick turnaround on a key staffing challenge, this was an extremely successful effort. A majority of the 99.4% of the applicants would disagree, even though all were given notice that a final selection had been made. Like it or not, the system worked and nobody got lost in the process, but much black hole theory fodder has again been stirred up.

I should also mention some aspects of this hire that will be guaranteed to be a sore point for many. For example, location became a key selection criterion as the search evolved. Without compromising on any element of the job specifications, the individual hired lived within commuting distance of the work site and had an MBA, was HRCI certified and had built a company from the ground up in a similar organization. At any point during the search a wider net could have been cast to include more candidates, but in this instance it was not necessary. It may also be significant for some to take note that no cover letters were used in the selection process. So any of the letters “guaranteed to get attention” were never actually read. In different circumstances it could have been a discriminator between two combatants on the job search battlefield, but in this case it was totally unnecessary. Is a successful hire luck or skill? I don’t believe in luck if a search is planned and focused in the right direction.

The solution to the resume black hole problem is communication. In the example shown, everyone got some sort of communication and all of the finalists were contacted personally with the decision on their candidacy. It is physically impossible to contact everyone. Just phone time alone to contact all applicants would have consumed a whole *work-week with no positive results other than perhaps some good will. Another factor is honest assessment of individual qualifications relative to job specifications. I’m sure there is a place populated by fairies and unicorns somewhere beyond the rainbow where someone still in school without experience can leap into their dream job and lead armies to battle, but I don’t live there. Trust me…I will give you a fair deal, but I don’t have the winning lottery numbers.

*15 minutes per call to 166 candidates equates to 5 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes…without coffee or bio breaks. It also assumes that everybody picks up the phone on the first ring and there are no callbacks required.