See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!
Who's hiring, who's not, and what else is hot
New numbers from a TalentSpring survey of 208 organizations in the U.S. and Canada (50 large companies, 39 medium-size, 205 small, and 114 agencies).
| 10 comments
|
flag
Log in or register to post a reply.
Both Jim Cargill and Jim Sullivan are likely right that some respondents were thinking about reviewing a "qualified resume" while others were thinking about "screening resumes".
The specific question's wording was: How many minutes do you allocate to read a single resume? It didn't differentiate between screening and reviewing qualified resumes (we will clarify that question on our next survey).
The average number of minutes reported was 6, but the median was only 3 minutes, indicating that the majority of respondents spent less time reading resumes than the average.
Because of the question's wording, respondents may have rounded to the nearest minute, rather than answering in seconds. 12% of respondents said that they allocated only 1 minute to read a single resume.
Other variances between personal experience and reported average could include organization size, industry, and experience level.
Jim Sullivan is also correct that the number of days to fill a position is the average off all positions types.
Thanks for your post, John, which helps clarify things a little. Todd
Man, I hate when I do that...
The point I was making is that people who write resumes actually think the resume is going to be read carefully. If they would more consider how resumes are viewed and evaluated, they might do a better job of expressing their qualifications in concise and clear terms. Just a thought to help people who do the writing....
Jim
You all make great comments, and are certainly correct. I have to think that maybe Todd was talking about the time spent evaluating a "qualified" resume.
There is another point to this that could be valuable to lots of folks. That is, recruiters scan resumes for 5-10 seconds to gauge quality and potential fit for positions. Most people who
Obviously a small sample to pull data from but the 6 minutes to READ a resume may be accurate for candidates under consideration. The better question would be "how long do you take to screen a resume" (in or out) and I think that would be less than 30 seconds, probably more like 10 or 15 seconds.
After 30 years of recruiting I can spot a "quality" resume almost immediately. I doubt that it would take 6 minutes to read it over and decide to make a contact with the candidate (or not).
The 38 days to fill a position is also skewed in IMHO, is that for all positions mixed together? (i.e. 1 day to hire a janitor, 7 days to hire an office admin trainee, 90 days to hire an engineer?) We all know that the higher you go on the "professional" scale - it normally takes longer to identify, screen, interview and hire. Although it would be great if that was in fact the way things go! :-)
I agree ... with others! 6 minutes seems way too long. However, is there a person at TalentSpring that may explain further? Did the agencies and or small business skew the data?
I have always heard 8 seconds for a resume which is about right if you have a large volume of open reqs.
Um. 6 minutes?? 10 resumes per hour?? That is clearly nonsense.
An average of six minutes reading a resume? Really? The number I usually see is 30 seconds which is much more realistic. The only time a recruiter spends more than 30 seconds on a resume is if they like it and are going to seriously consider the candidate.
I beg to differ on avg. minute reviewing resume. As a solid recruiter at Wal-Mart, it was much less. There were tons of resumes due to name recognition and, honestly, there were a lot of great resumes. You become VERY good at spotting excellence, longevity, skills....
However, if more great companies would hone sourcing skills, the whole dynamic would change.
