Why Keyword Scans Don't Work For Either Candidates or Companies when Screening Resumes

The problem with keyword search, when companies are using computers to scan submitted résumés, is that there are just too many variables. Because of all the infinite possibilities, scanners may miss the best candidates.  (This is also the problem with having junior executives who may not be totally familiar with their business.)

Trained and experienced people should be reading résumés, not computers.  The issue is that there are just too many options to describe the same thing.  These variables exist on multiple levels – brands, titles, experiences and companies – the list is endless.

To use an example, suppose a company is screening for a mid-level person to service a package goods account.  Here are possible terms used to describe the experience of working on these products:  package goods, packaged goods, FMCG (fast moving consumer goods), CPG (consumer package goods), and consumer goods.  But they could also be described by their functions – soaps, detergents, toothpaste, health and beauty aids, HBA, food, soup, dessert, confection, confectionary, candy, chocolate, etc.  You get the point – any of these terms is acceptable.  To take it a step further, supposed one has worked on either Procter & Gamble or Unilever, here are variables on those names, all correct:  P&G, Procter and Gamble, Procter, Unilever, Lever, Lever Brothers.  The list goes on.

No person can program a computer with enough variables to cover all the possibilities, including all the hundreds of brand names, which used by themselves would convey consumer package goods.

The number of business-to-business brands or service bands and their nomenclature and descriptions is probably even greater than CPG.  Ditto automotive and car brands, cosmetics or dozens of other categories.

And, of course, most scanning programs only recognize programmed words and cannot give weight to the experience.  While working on Gain Detergent, which is made by Procter & Gamble, may be valuable experience, is it as good as working on Tide or Ariel (Tide in Europe)?  Is Colgate Total better than Crest or Audi better than Volvo?  The answer may have to do with the job being filled.  I remember once early on when I was recruiting, meeting a wonderful candidate who was working on Lincoln.  I introduced him to the agency then handling BMW and got my head handed to me.  “You should know that we are an imported car and we never talk to people who have domestic automotive experience.”  But at least I found out why my candidate was rejected.  With key word scanning, one is never told why they are rejected.

In addition to all the above, there is the proliferation of titles.  In any given industry titles are rife.  Just take digital.  People involved with SEO/SEM may or may not have titles which use those terms.  They can also use other terms: content, engagement, content, UX, user experience – the list goes on and can be endless.  The point is that no programmer can put in all the possible variations and alternatives.  And on top of all this, there is level.  What is a senior at one company may not be so senior at another (I have always been amused by the title senior account executive, which, frankly is meaningless).

Then, there is education.  There are literarily hundreds of wonderful colleges in the country.  Countless studies have shown that where an undergraduate degree comes from has only a small correlation to future success, so companies which program in colleges to their searches are doing themselves an immense disservice. 

Companies that allow themselves to fall into the expediency of keyword scanning may miss their best possible candidates.  The issue is not the brands, brand names, parent companies or product categories.  The issue is always a careful definition of the job, what has to be accomplished and the experience(s) necessary to accomplish the task. Keywords just cannot just determine that because computers are not so intelligent as to be able to interpret the words on a page.