The New Resume Song: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters

Those of us who have been in recruiting longer than a few minutes may not have to squeeze our brains too hard to juice out the memories of a time when a gap in a resume was an anomaly. It could usually be interpreted to mean that there was a possible flaw in a candidate’s ability or character. Only once in my career did I get an explanation from a candidate that involved lessons learned from time spent in jail, but we treated all gaps as if we were uncovering the true story of Lizzie Borden. Today it is difficult to find an experienced worker that is not plagued by at least one instance of a corporate downsizing, plant shutdown or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully, most of us have evolved our thought processes over time and these are recognized as common occurrences. There is a lingering curiosity bordering on paranoia that something may be seriously wrong. The time has come to address this issue head on… by recruiters AND candidates.

• The most prejudicial viewpoints come from hiring managers – It is human nature to draw upon personal experience as evidence of truth in decision making. While recruiters have witnessed firsthand the evolution of hiring trends, many people that are not as closely involved in the day-to-day hiring practice are more reluctant to set aside employment gaps as irrelevant. A recurring theme is “if she is really that good then why is she not working?” Shortsighted? Possibly, but comments such as this can’t be dismissed with a shrug. The recruiter is obligated to probe for the most complete story and become a candidate advocate. A secondary obligation of the recruiter is to be a training conduit to management on factors in the wild that impact effective hiring.
• Look for reasons rather than excuses – To know the total work history of any candidate, somebody has to account for gaps in the resume. Without turning to the dark side and expecting to find evil incarnate, evaluate the reason for the periods that the individual was out of work. Layoffs happen. How big was the layoff relative to size of the company? A one-person layoff is usually a euphemism for getting canned. What was the reason for the canning? Personality differences do not necessarily disqualify anyone. Some managers are jerks… we have all had them. The best interview technique is to look for patterns and ask the question at several points in several different ways. It is also OK to quit a job… probably only once, though. We never want to talk about hostile work environments or bad bosses, but we have all been there.
• Honesty is always the best policy – We live in a world where everybody seems to accept lies on a small scale but feign horror at the whoppers. Encouraging honesty not only gathers the best information it also eases the frustration associated with communication in tense situations. Volunteer work, education and personal reasons are all viable gap fillers. They make the best use of time off and also to prepare for returning to work. How deeply to probe into personal reasons can be touchy but isn’t off limits. In fact, it is a skill to know when to stop and leave well enough alone. Relocating with a spouse is personal and not off limits in questioning. Caring for aging parents or other humanitarian aspects of life is sufficient to explain a gap without drilling for gory details. The so-called “Mommy Track” is typical and not a reason to suspect a lack of dedication to the employer. Penalizing someone for alternative temporary priorities is never a reason to disqualify… and in some instances may be illegal.
• Allow candidates to save face without embarrassment – Culturally, we often bypass the need to just simply be nice. Nobody wins if we play games with reality by subjecting someone to such a grilling that you finally reach a “gotcha” moment. It may realistically be necessary to try and eliminate doubt from a decision, but after reaching a well founded conclusion there is no need to go for blood. If someone is caught in a serious lie, don’t hire them and drop the issue. If someone is too evasive to provide necessary input, let them go without fanfare and select someone more cooperative. There may be a moment when the recruiter will be confronted with a question about the decision and again it does not pay to be evasive. If facts in the resume are inflated and research confirms it, there is no harm in being direct if all the homework has been done in advance.

While this is more of an article for recruiters, it is always important for job seekers to “Think Like a Recruiter” and take advice by studying the other team’s playbook. The reverse is also true. Recruiters and managers must empathize with the job seeker and seek fairness in their treatment and allowance for bridging gaps when necessary.

 
Image credit: eddygaleotti / 123RF Stock Photo