Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you send your most recent performance evaluations to a potential employer how much impact does it have on actually getting the job in most instances? Is it as relevant as the resume and cover letter?
I've been interviewing and hiring extensively for the past 10 years and can't say I've ever received anyone's performance evaluations as part of the interview package. I certainly would frown if those were included for say, experienced mid-level personnel and above, but might consider it an edge for clerical, non-exempt staff or entry level positions. In such cases, excellent reviews would definitely pique my curiosity and I might flag such an applicant for a potential interview on that account, provided that the cover letter and resume are very well written and relevant to the position. That said, the candidate had better be able to live up to the great reviews during the interview, since now I will have formed certain higher expectations of him/ her based on those reviews! In fact, I would scrutinize such an individual much more closely to determine whether or not, in my opinion, the candidate lives up to the fanfare. In the final analysis, though, there is no substitute for good presentation and personal projection, which in my book supercede most everything else. I recall one particular instance in which I brought a certain woman in for an interview based on her outstanding resume and cover letter, only to find out during the interview that she was -- how can i say this kindly -- well, an idiot! In this case her stellar resume and CL, which were obviously not written by her or else described someone else, actually worked against her. In her case, she could've received a "walks on water" rating in her previous company for the past 7 years in a row and I still wouldn't have hired her if she'd been the last available applicant in the world! So I guess the moral of the story is, just make sure you can live up to the package you present to an employer, or it could hurt you a lot!
I've been interviewing and hiring extensively for the past 10 years and can't say I've ever received anyone's performance evaluations as part of the interview package. I certainly would frown if those were included for say, experienced mid-level personnel and above, but might consider it an edge for clerical, non-exempt staff or entry level positions. In such cases, excellent reviews would definitely pique my curiosity and I might flag such an applicant for a potential interview on that account, provided that the cover letter and resume are very well written and relevant to the position. That said, the candidate had better be able to live up to the great reviews during the interview, since now I will have formed certain higher expectations of him/ her based on those reviews! In fact, I would scrutinize such an individual much more closely to determine whether or not, in my opinion, the candidate lives up to the fanfare. In the final analysis, though, there is no substitute for good presentation and personal projection, which in my book supercede most everything else. I recall one particular instance in which I brought a certain woman in for an interview based on her outstanding resume and cover letter, only to find out during the interview that she was -- how can i say this kindly -- well, an idiot! In this case her stellar resume and CL, which were obviously not written by her or else described someone else, actually worked against her. In her case, she could've received a "walks on water" rating in her previous company for the past 7 years in a row and I still wouldn't have hired her if she'd been the last available applicant in the world! So I guess the moral of the story is, just make sure you can live up to the package you present to an employer, or it could hurt you a lot!
Best of luck to you!
Thanks for the support. I am not actively looking at this time, but my eyes are always open of course. Why would an employer frown upon this for mid level personnel, but not entry level?
Why would an employer frown upon this for mid level personnel, but not entry level?
Because this is such an unorthodox practice (today I had the opportunity to raise this question with 15 other senior executives and none had ever run into this situation!), I would probably find it rather creative coming from someone who doesn't have much work experience but wants to demonstrate his capability/ potential. More seasoned employees should be familiar with the proper job seeking protocol, so a depature of this nature would suggest to me one of 3 potential deficiencies: a) the candidate has been rejected a lot and is now desperate to land an interview; b) the candidate is trying to compensate for a perceived disadvantage (ex., not having a college degree, or having one from a "lesser" institution, or otherwise less impressive qualifications than the competition), or c) the candidate has mediocre writing and communication skills and so is unsure that he can aptly represent himself via his resume, cover letter and personal interview. IMHO.
I'm curious to hear what other people out there think, or whether they've ever been in this situation...
Thanks for starting this thread -- it's extremely thought-provoking and a GREAT conversation starter!
Location: Lots of sun and palm trees with occasional hurricane :)
8,293 posts, read 16,157,785 times
Reputation: 7018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITend2XL
I've been interviewing and hiring extensively for the past 10 years and can't say I've ever received anyone's performance evaluations as part of the interview package. I certainly would frown if those were included for say, experienced mid-level personnel and above, but might consider it an edge for clerical, non-exempt staff or entry level positions. In such cases, excellent reviews would definitely pique my curiosity and I might flag such an applicant for a potential interview on that account, provided that the cover letter and resume are very well written and relevant to the position. That said, the candidate had better be able to live up to the great reviews during the interview, since now I will have formed certain higher expectations of him/ her based on those reviews! In fact, I would scrutinize such an individual much more closely to determine whether or not, in my opinion, the candidate lives up to the fanfare. In the final analysis, though, there is no substitute for good presentation and personal projection, which in my book supercede most everything else. I recall one particular instance in which I brought a certain woman in for an interview based on her outstanding resume and cover letter, only to find out during the interview that she was -- how can i say this kindly -- well, an idiot! In this case her stellar resume and CL, which were obviously not written by her or else described someone else, actually worked against her. In her case, she could've received a "walks on water" rating in her previous company for the past 7 years in a row and I still wouldn't have hired her if she'd been the last available applicant in the world! So I guess the moral of the story is, just make sure you can live up to the package you present to an employer, or it could hurt you a lot!
Best of luck to you!
Wow. You scare me a little. I've done my share of hiring and firing and counseling and I've come to the conclusion that you can't REALLY judge from appearances, or even a nice resume. I try to get into questions and comments about the specific area I'm digging into and I can tell, almost immediately, if the person knows what they say they know, regardless of looks.
I think as people get older too, looks become less important because experience, self-esteem and confidence are just more prominent. I do agree that a well-dressed and well-groomed applicant can make a good first impression but it's secondary. I'm in healthcare. This may make a difference also.
I have seen prior evaluations attached to a resume.
Wow. You scare me a little. I've done my share of hiring and firing and counseling and I've come to the conclusion that you can't REALLY judge from appearances, or even a nice resume. I try to get into questions and comments about the specific area I'm digging into and I can tell, almost immediately, if the person knows what they say they know, regardless of looks.
I agree that one can't "judge" by appearances, but their power to influence and set expectations has been inequivocably and thoroughly documented.
While it would be great if it weren't so, the reality is that we form impressions and expectations (consciously and unconsciously) regarding all the stimuli around us, so we have to be very mindful of our presentation, particularly when it is impersonal (ie, resume, cover letter, email). Ever had interactions with people over the phone, only to meet them face to face one day and be surprised that they don't look the way you pictured them? And this, when you weren't even aware that you had painted a picture in your mind based on the voice, or even what you thought the person should look like; all you know is, he/she was not supposed to look like THAT, lol!
In this case, I think the difference is that your response, perhaps more in line with the OP's question, relates to the impact these points have AFTER the interview. I addressed it from the standpoint of selecting people FOR an interview, when all I have in front of me is paper. In such cases I'm not "judging," but forming expectations based on the picture the prospective employee has painted for me based on their presentation materials. After all, isn't that the purpose of a CV -- to convey a snapshot of yourself to a potential employer? And when I do interview the individual, I expect him/her to live up to or surpass my expectations based on how they portrayed themselves in their presentation materials. If I'm underwhelmed, it tells me there's a disconnect between the employee's view of self and their actual capabilities, which is definitely not good. If the individual surpasses my expectations, I surmise that they just need a little polish in their writing or marketing skills, which is no problem -- we can deal with that.
In the final analysis, interviewing is a largely subjective matter so one can't predict how any one person will interpret the material before him. It goes without say that, by and large, knowledge will probably have a much greater impact than other superficial criteria, but even that can be debated. I've interviewed/ worked with plenty of people with impressive pedigrees and obvious knowledge, but they lacked the ability to put the knowledge to good use (ie, common sense), or they don't have the social skills necessary to succeed in the position. All depends on what you're looking for. In my book, I'd rather have a well balanced person that one who shines off the scale in one criteria but is deficient in another important area. AND, I don't care how smart or qualified a candidate is, a resume with typos or stains and a cover letter that isn't at least reasonably well redacted will not get them an interview. And, if the candidate makes the cut for an interview and is well qualified but is inappropriately attired or doesn't present him/herself eloquently/ personably, I will definitely not hire them to represent my company before our clients and public. That simple.
In all fairness, the type of industry, specific role and job level all have an important role to play in how lenient (or not) we are with candidates. At this point in my career I only interview mid- to senior level management for high visibility/ high impact positions (with the accompanying, extremely generous compensation package) so I expect potential candidates to walk on water. It's the difference between what it takes to go ice skating in the backyard pond vs. going to the Olympics!
Location: Lots of sun and palm trees with occasional hurricane :)
8,293 posts, read 16,157,785 times
Reputation: 7018
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITend2XL
I agree that one can't "judge" by appearances, but their power to influence and set expectations has been inequivocably and thoroughly documented.
While it would be great if it weren't so, the reality is that we form impressions and expectations (consciously and unconsciously) regarding all the stimuli around us, so we have to be very mindful of our presentation, particularly when it is impersonal (ie, resume, cover letter, email). Ever had interactions with people over the phone, only to meet them face to face one day and be surprised that they don't look the way you pictured them? And this, when you weren't even aware that you had painted a picture in your mind based on the voice, or even what you thought the person should look like; all you know is, he/she was not supposed to look like THAT, lol!
In this case, I think the difference is that your response, perhaps more in line with the OP's question, relates to the impact these points have AFTER the interview. I addressed it from the standpoint of selecting people FOR an interview, when all I have in front of me is paper. In such cases I'm not "judging," but forming expectations based on the picture the prospective employee has painted for me based on their presentation materials. After all, isn't that the purpose of a CV -- to convey a snapshot of yourself to a potential employer? And when I do interview the individual, I expect him/her to live up to or surpass my expectations based on how they portrayed themselves in their presentation materials. If I'm underwhelmed, it tells me there's a disconnect between the employee's view of self and their actual capabilities, which is definitely not good. If the individual surpasses my expectations, I surmise that they just need a little polish in their writing or marketing skills, which is no problem -- we can deal with that.
In the final analysis, interviewing is a largely subjective matter so one can't predict how any one person will interpret the material before him. It goes without say that, by and large, knowledge will probably have a much greater impact than other superficial criteria, but even that can be debated. I've interviewed/ worked with plenty of people with impressive pedigrees and obvious knowledge, but they lacked the ability to put the knowledge to good use (ie, common sense), or they don't have the social skills necessary to succeed in the position. All depends on what you're looking for. In my book, I'd rather have a well balanced person that one who shines off the scale in one criteria but is deficient in another important area. AND, I don't care how smart or qualified a candidate is, a resume with typos or stains and a cover letter that isn't at least reasonably well redacted will not get them an interview. And, if the candidate makes the cut for an interview and is well qualified but is inappropriately attired or doesn't present him/herself eloquently/ personably, I will definitely not hire them to represent my company before our clients and public. That simple.
In all fairness, the type of industry, specific role and job level all have an important role to play in how lenient (or not) we are with candidates. At this point in my career I only interview mid- to senior level management for high visibility/ high impact positions (with the accompanying, extremely generous compensation package) so I expect potential candidates to walk on water. It's the difference between what it takes to go ice skating in the backyard pond vs. going to the Olympics!
LOLLLL... Yes, I do agree with most of what you say. We always do "judge" one way or another even if not intentionally. I can understand where high level, corporate "need" to look and portray themselves with special demeanor. If I'm donating a million bucks I want to be treated royally and with the ultimate finesse. If I am the owner or CEO, COO of a major corporation and I am trying to "sell" my services/company, my people need to carry that message. I always go googoo eyes with pharm reps. Most of them look stunning. They also have to be very smart and very well spoken if they want our business.
Where I am (over 8,000 employees), we have the whole spectrum, yet it's funny how the lowest paid are the most overworked AND are the first impression. These are mostly young adults, with no or little high level education or experience, working their way through college, older, previously unemployed due to downsizing from their mega previous life.
Also, those who do not ever deal with the public but are behind a screen and a keyboard and are responsible for output. Their accuracy and knowledge are key to avoiding bigger problems.
Our big shots are not very impressive looking. Their reputation is more word of mouth than anything else. Our senior/executive managers come and go frequently. Not very impressed with them. It's those at the bottom that hold up the fort most of the time.
I've been interviewing and hiring extensively for the past 10 years and can't say I've ever received anyone's performance evaluations as part of the interview package. I certainly would frown if those were included for say, experienced mid-level personnel and above, but might consider it an edge for clerical, non-exempt staff or entry level positions. In such cases, excellent reviews would definitely pique my curiosity and I might flag such an applicant for a potential interview on that account, provided that the cover letter and resume are very well written and relevant to the position. That said, the candidate had better be able to live up to the great reviews during the interview, since now I will have formed certain higher expectations of him/ her based on those reviews! In fact, I would scrutinize such an individual much more closely to determine whether or not, in my opinion, the candidate lives up to the fanfare. In the final analysis, though, there is no substitute for good presentation and personal projection, which in my book supercede most everything else. I recall one particular instance in which I brought a certain woman in for an interview based on her outstanding resume and cover letter, only to find out during the interview that she was -- how can i say this kindly -- well, an idiot! In this case her stellar resume and CL, which were obviously not written by her or else described someone else, actually worked against her. In her case, she could've received a "walks on water" rating in her previous company for the past 7 years in a row and I still wouldn't have hired her if she'd been the last available applicant in the world! So I guess the moral of the story is, just make sure you can live up to the package you present to an employer, or it could hurt you a lot!
Best of luck to you!
Please tell me more about what hiring managers look for in cover letters. How do I make mine "fresh" when a cover letter is just that... a cover letter. I want it to be read by the hiring manager and not just tossed aside with the other, "Enclosed please find my resume..." cover letters. Help, please.
If you send your most recent performance evaluations to a potential employer how much impact does it have on actually getting the job in most instances? Is it as relevant as the resume and cover letter?
In my personal opinion, it's overkill, and gives an employer something to nitpick over. Example: a decade ago, I used a positive performance appraisal as "Exhibit A" in a job interview. Problem was, that appraisal contained one sentence about my much improved performance since the prior performance appraisal. Well, that employer focused on that ONE sentence and got it in their head I might be a "problem employee." Even though I got the job, I did not get along with bosses there and left after a few months. And I wonder sometimes if that ONE sentence in the appraisal created a negative first impression.
So my point is that you want to put your best foot forward in an interview situation in whatever way possible. Don't give an employer ANYTHING that could possibly put you in a negative light or cause you to go on the defensive.
Nope, never had a problem with any resume. Never needed one. In 1960 after problems as an employee being stuck between management and a union I QUIT! Later found out that I would never have any advancement with them as I was believed to be a squealer to the UNION and NOT a COMPANY MAN. It was not TRUE. I went into business on my own and made more money in two weeks after leaving then I would have made with UNION scale over a three month period. I operated the business for 15 yrs. Took 4 day vacations every 3 months. Mostly to Vegas. Nope NEVER NEEDED A RESUME. Steve
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
