LinkedIn. Social media for grown-ups, the job seekers best friend and the end of the road for the Curriculum Vitae as we know it. Following Dan Schawbel’s excellent piece Predict the End of the Traditional Resume Here in Personal Branding Blog last week, here are 5 more reasons why LinkedIn will prove to be the ultimate CV killer.
1. Data Currency
CV’s get out of date, fast. As a static file it does a passable job of capturing a snapshot of your achievements, but it begins running out of currency the moment it leaves the safe confines of your desktop. You click send, it instantly becomes a historical document; the longer it’s out there, the more remote it becomes to your reality and the less relevance it has to you and your job search. Legacy CV’s – documents you sent several job searches ago – can sit on recruiter databases and online job boards for years after your original submission. These documents are so far out of date, they constitute misinformation on your professional status and are a significant threat to the message you are communicating to the employer market, never mind the negative connotation it delivers to your personal brand.
HOW DOES LINKEDIN CHANGE THINGS?
Like all social networking sites, LinkedIn gives you the opportunity to amend your profile any time you are log into your account. Got a new qualification? Add it to the Education section. Got a new job? Simply Add A New Position. Looking for a job? Update your status to that effect. There are no files to upload, no documents to rewrite, no rogue files to chase down and delete. LinkedIn can be as near to a real time depiction of your current professional status as you need it to be, removing the need for anyone to ask the first question of any recruitment process – ‘are you looking for work?’
2. Data Accuracy
CV’s are marketing documents and they typically contain….embellishments on the truth. Lets face it, when you need a job, you’ll do what it takes to get one and that often means telling people about the time when you were the James Bond of company X or business Y. The more subtle may prefer the technique of claiming credit for stuff you never did. Sure, you knocked out a few spreadsheets, and they looked really good but doesn’t mean that you delivered the £100 million business critical project, buddy. Some even go right ahead and tell outright lies – dates, job titles, employers, responsibilities or whatever else comes to mind. I should know. I’ve hired a few of those guys.
Why do people feel free to lie on the CV?
The temptation is there because there’s a good chance that you won’t be contradicted until after you’ve been offered the job. Due diligence in the recruitment process generally takes place after the fact – remember the ‘offer conditional upon satisfactory references’ line? As crazy as it sounds, this is how we do it – interview, offer, then check whether the guy is crazy or not. References were invented precisely because employers wanted a system to assure themselves that the Richard Branson they’ve just offered the job to is just precisely who he says he is. It’s just never been a very good system.
HOW DOES LINKEDIN CHANGE THINGS?
Of course, there is nothing stopping you from lying on your LinkedIn profile; however, it would be one of the most unwise and career limiting mistakes you could make. The information you put out there is public, it is open to challenge, and the people you are connected with are the very people who know you best – your work colleagues. Lying on LinkedIn affects them by their association with you and you’ll either see a mass departure of your soon-to-be ex connections or a complete lack of recommendations from the very people from whom you need it most. What’s more, the visibility of your connections allows a preliminary reference to be easily taken by any employer foolish enough to contemplate hiring you – without your knowledge or say so. Anybody still think this is a good idea?
3. Data Presentation
How many times do career coaches/advisors/your wife tell you to distinguish yourself from the hordes of CV sending maniacs by increasing your font size and inserting a few nice tables? And you know what? they do have a point – it is good to be different. Career expert Alison Doyle always gives great tips on CV writing. But being different brings its own set of problems, principally by making it a serious pain-in-the-ass for recruiters and hiring managers to compare candidates on a like-for-like basis. Having different looking CV’s means that recruiters are actually going to have to go to the trouble of reading them. This is why the application form was invented, basically an attempt to standardise the presentation of applicant data to increase human and computer efficiency. Some institutions like, anything to do with Her Majesty’s Government don’t actually accept job applications in any other way. But of course, every employer has a different application form, passing on the pain to the applicants who have to go through the rigmarole of completing different sets of forms for every single job they apply for – its difficult to think of a bigger waste of time for an already time stressed job seeker.
Why can’t there just be one standard template for presenting your professional experience….?
HOW DOES LINKEDIN CHANGE THINGS?
Regardless of the content you input or applications you add, the basic template for every one of LinkedIn 40 million plus users remains the same. Recruiters have long since become familiar with the information architecture of LinkedIn profiles and their ability to conduct comparative assessments has consequently become much more efficient. LinkedIn makes it easier for recruiters and hiring managers to make decisions – this is a good thing for everyone involved in the recruitment process, leading to quicker decisions, fewer dead ends and less time wasted.
4. Data Protection
We already know you lose control over your CV when you submit to somebody or somewhere else. What we haven’t talked about is how you’ve also lose control over the content within the document. Your carefully crafted two page masterpiece? Oh, you mean the one that’s about to be mangled by the incompatible technology stack of the job board you’ve sent it to? Or perhaps you mean the one that’s about to be deliberately altered by the recruiter who thinks its not quite fit for his particular purpose? If you think you have only have one version of your CV out there in cyberspace, then think again. If you’ve ever applied to an online advert, or uploaded one to a job board, the chances are you have many, many more.
HOW DOES LINKEDIN CHANGE THINGS?
LinkedIn is a network of password protected profiles, where the owner has sole authority to create, edit, manage and delete information on his or her account. It is not a file that can be doctored or reproduced, nor is there a requirement for it be compatible with this reader or that database. Furthermore, any duplicate accounts can be easily located and removed by the owner. The security of the data on a LinkedIn profile is one of the primary reasons why it is so popular as a recruiting tool – it serves as a method of validating information found on CV’s. It has become the single most authentic representation of an individuals professional experience; its only a natural extension of the logic to see it replace the CV entirely once we get comfortable with information that is managed this way.
5. Data Disintermediation
Data disinterwhat? Yeah, that’s right. Data disintermediation. Or cutting out the middle man if you prefer English to recruiterspeak. It is not a stretch to say that the flaws inherent within the CV is one the central reasons why recruitment agents – and filing cabinets – actually exist. As CV aggregators, the recruiters grew an industry to fulfill an essential service for job seekers and employers alike – storing and managing CV information. So long as the CV was currency of the job market, the recruiters had a real value added role to play, playing match maker between those who had the labour and those who held the vacancies.
HOW DOES LINKEDIN CHANGE THINGS?
LinkedIn has enabled job seekers and employers to reach each other directly, without the need for intermediaries or the documents they monopolise. Recruiters have lost control of the information on which the industry is based, not because they’ve lost control over CV’s, but because CV’s themselves have been superceded by another way of presenting records of professional achievement. The implication is obvious – if job seekers and employers find each other through the information they exchange on LinkedIn, the need to produce a document replicating much of that information will increasingly be seen as inane.
SO, IS THE CV REALLY DEAD?
Culture lags behind technology. And when cultural change comes, there is no reason to assume that it will uniform across all sectors of the society. Indeed if we review the inconsistent adoption of what we now accept as standard tools, we can anticipate variance we what we’ll find in different sectors of the economy. Only last year, I worked with one public sector client where staff still shared one PC in order to send emails – this in 2008. So the CV will be around for at least a while, certainly as a backup document ‘for the records’ (those filing cabinets again) but it will be increasingly marginalised in the recruitment process in favour of more efficient, more accurate and more authentic media. And as Gen Y enters the workforce in real numbers, the erosion of its value will continue, until one day – soon – employers will simply stop asking for them.
[...] and myself about how LinkedIn is a potential CV killer. Whilst I agreed with the majority of his points there were a few I didn’t agree with. And so this post was [...]
[...] nowhere near as well known as it is today! Lots of people have also said the same since with this excellent post from Hung Lee being just one example of this kind of [...]
Oh Hung – normally a big advocate of your content, I’m afraid I disagree with so much.
Good plan to re-introduce this blog on twitter though given LinkedIn’s latest plans.
1. Data Currency? So many LinkedIn profiles are out of date. People can make the same ongoing adjustments on CVs. But LinkedIn doesn’t have an overwhelming headstart on this at all.
2. Data Accuracy? – People put what they need to put on LinkedIn – it’s often a summary of key job roles, and lacks real content in 90% of cases. CVs are always fulsome and tell a story.
3. Data Visualisation – Totally, totally disagree on this one. Recruiters/Employers do not want to see identically formated CVs – they want to see creative skills, content layout skills, communication skills. Individuality.
4. Data Protection? Seriously? – LinkedIn is a platform to withhold data freely, that anyone can see and use to their benefit. CVs are private material produced only when necessary. An unscrupulous is more able to gain leverage from a LinkedIn profile of someone they don’t know, than an actual applicants CV.
5. Data Dis-intermediation – is mediation really a bad thing? There’s a reason why companies use PR agencies, Marketing agencies, Tax accountants, Recruitment consultants, Hiring strategy consultants, social media consultants, etc… it’s because they are not in the best position themselves, to maximise the process – either in effect or speed.
I’m an enormous advocate of LinkedIn – essential it is. But it is NOT a CV replacer. No service is a CV replacer. LinkedIn’s active usage is still extremely limited on a grand scale – yet everyone has a CV.
CV’s aren’t dying – they are evolving. I encourage people to advance their CV with greater connectivity and content – but it will never die. My clients still want CVs – even in the futuristic social media/digital space. It’s because they’re not broken – they work.
linked in or face book are cool, they are your CV online. Plus with so many mobile apps made for recruitment which dont allow you to apply online as they dont know what to do with your traditonal cv which is not present on most phones, and if it is, its in PDF format which is no use to man nor beast.
Steve linked in tells people what they need to know, the rest is all personality and being able to provide references from people who will vouch for your skills none of which a CV has
[...] skip the resume every time there you have news. Hung Lee wrote a good post a few months ago called 5 Reasons LinkedIn is a CV Killer. Only time will tell whether this new application button is the final nail in the coffin for the [...]
Steve Ward – I totally agree with your comments – a really balanced view.
IMHO – as with many “new ways of communicating” – they will rarely replace the personal contact that humans crave, but may often enhance it. I see linked in, facebook, twitter etc as enhancements, not replacements.
Can anyone tell me if this CV is dead…?
http://recruitmentmisfit.com/the-perfect-creative-cv-simon-mould
It’s not about replacement, it’s about evolution and enhancement.
[...] of smart people think its victory over the CV is nigh, especially with the release of their ‘Apply with [...]
Didn’t we hear something similar when Monster was launched re the death of the Employment Agency?
As Steve Ward says, there are a number of reasons why LinkedIn will not replace agencies and CVs. As an IT Recruitment Consultant I would add several more:
1. LinkedIn profiles are rarely as complete as a CV, and the best CVs are tailored to each job. A CV can be easily edited and sent to a different company, but on LinkedIn, you would have to edit your public profile each time. No one is going to do that, because a) too much bother, b) makes it obvious to your current employer that you are looking and c) could interfere with other, ongoing applications.
2. A lot of companies don’t like to announce that they are looking for staff. This is valuable information to competitors amongst others, and there may be ‘political’ reasons to keep it quiet – i.e., when replacing a senior-level employee who hasn’t made public his resignation. Any recruitment will be kept low-key as a result.
3. LinkedIn doesn’t have universal usage, and never will. There are other professional networking sites (although, admittedly, few as popular), and there are plenty even within my generation – generation y – who don’t and won’t use it.
4. LinkedIn cannot solve the problems of poor-quality candidates applying in droves for jobs. In fact, with as many users as LinkedIn has, the problem is likely to get worse. That isn’t a problem for a company who has invested in a good quality recruitment team, but for many companies the reason why they use agencies is because it takes the hassle out of recruiting. They get 3 or 4 high quality CVs through.
5. Look at Silicon Valley in the US. That is an example of an industry which does a huge amount of recruitment online. The problem you face in that environment is, how do you distinguish yourself and get yourself seen? If you aren’t Google or Facebook it is tricky. Recruitment agencies are able to raise the profile of companies who would otherwise be overlooked.
6a. To do away with the CV and the recruitment agency, all jobs would have to be advertised directly on LinkedIn. This will never happen. Even now, the majority of jobs (estimates vary, but they always agree that it is over 50%) aren’t advertised directly, relying instead on networking, direct referrals etc. I am often able to place candidates by, when i find someone really promising, approaching a company directly and asking if they have a position. Personal networks do matter. A company who trusts me and my services through our interactions together will consider candidates even if not actively looking. LinkedIn is an impersonal network. You don’t know who is applying to your job and you don’t have anyone to vouch for them.
And 6b. Likewise, if I have a good relationship with a candidate, I can convince them to consider roles that they wouldn’t otherwise. LinkedIn Apply will only work for candidates who are actively looking. These are often the strongest candidates.
There are a huge number of reasons why LinkedIn will not replace the CV or the recruitment agency. It is simply another tool in the arsenal.
CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS POST –
“LinkedIn Apply will only work for candidates who are actively looking. These are often the strongest candidates.”
I meant these are often NOT the strongest candidates! Apologies for the omission.