Employment Screening

Tightening your decision filters might make you feel smarter—but it could make your decisions dumber. A recent study followed a startup accelerator through 3,580 project submissions and three redesigns of its selection process. The goal? Reduce false positives (backing flops) and false negatives (missing stars). Despite increasing structure—more weight on track record, more screening layers—errors persisted. In fact, the strictest regime produced more mistakes. Two psychological culprits explain why: 1. Mean reversion: Over-reliance on past success dampens our sensitivity to fresh potential. No glittering CV? No chance. 2. Within-type adverse selection: The tougher the screen, the more motivated average applicants are to mimic the cues of brilliance—and get through. But here's what struck me most: every redesign felt rational, even smart. More rigor. More data. More process. And yet, it missed something deeply human. Real potential—whether in people, ideas, or startups—is often messy, unfinished, and hard to score. And evaluators, like all of us, lean toward what's legible, familiar, or credentialed. So what’s the takeaway? 👉 More filters don’t guarantee better picks. 👉 Relying on proxies (track record, polish, fluency) can backfire. 👉 True innovation sometimes sounds awkward at first—because it’s new. If we want to stop selecting the best presenters of ideas and start backing the best ideas, we need to design selection systems that don’t just reward polish. Because sometimes, the next big thing doesn’t look like a sure bet. It looks like a question mark. https://lnkd.in/dRz8FeNe

This resume got someone a job as data analyst at Meta. Last week, someone asked me to review their resume seeking a role in data analyst. On the surface? It looked “okay.” But here’s why it still wouldn’t make it past the recruiter screen — or even the ATS. 1. Generic summary with no focus The resume opens with: “Strategic thinker with data analysis skills.” But… strategic for what industry? Data analysis in what context? There’s no domain positioning (healthcare, finance, e-commerce), no mention of specific business problems solved, and no hook to tell a recruiter, “This person is perfect for our team.” 2. Experience lacks impact, depth, and direction Phrases like “Built dashboards,” “Maintained reports,” and “Collaborated with teams” are too vague. There’s no context: → Who used the dashboards — finance teams? leadership? sales? → What decisions were made from the reports? → Did this work lead to cost savings? Process efficiency? Customer insights? There’s also no consistent mention of tools per project — Power BI, SQL, or Tableau are listed once in the skills section, but not tied to real business value in the bullet points. 3. No project section or external proof For a data analyst, personal projects are non-negotiable. When you don’t showcase independent work (via GitHub, Tableau Public, Kaggle, or even a portfolio site), it tells the hiring team: → You only do what’s assigned. → You haven’t built anything meaningful outside your 9–5. → You’re not invested in sharpening your craft. That’s a dealbreaker. 4. Certifications feel surface-level “Certified in Excel” or “Completed workshop at GrowthSchool” means little without application. There’s no story of how those certifications were used to solve real problems. Hiring managers don’t want to know what you passed — They want to know what you built. 5. Education section is a missed opportunity The candidate holds a Master’s in Data Analytics — that’s a powerful asset. But there’s: → No mention of core coursework (e.g. predictive modeling, data visualization, SQL, Python) → No capstone or thesis project → No tools or datasets referenced Your education should prove you’ve done real work in real environments. In contrast, here are 5 key rules that get a resume shortlisted: 1. Start with a clear positioning statement. Tell me what kind of analyst you are and what industries you serve. 2. Make every bullet show a result. “Reduced processing time by 40% using Power BI” > “Built dashboards” 3. Add 1–2 real projects or GitHub links. Let your skills speak beyond your job title. 4. Use keywords from the job description. Tailor every resume. No generic blasts. 5. Format it like a sales page — not a diary. Clear sections. Action verbs. No fluff. Your resume is a marketing doc. Make every line earn its place. Need a second set of eyes on your resume? DM me — happy to help.

You have 7 seconds to catch a recruiter's attention. That's a frequently shared stat that comes from a study a few years ago using eye scanners to watch recruiters review resumes. I think it's really useful, but it clouds the full story, because many are under the impression that recruiters ONLY spend 7 seconds on resumes and that's simply not true. The INITIAL scan is ~7 seconds. And in that scan, here's what I (and likely others) look for: 1. Location 2. Job titles for the last 2 jobs 3. Companies for the last 2 jobs If those basics don't line up, then we'll reject. If they DO line up, then we'll do a much deeper dive that could run 1-5 minutes (even longer if we need to research to understand more of how the person's background aligns. So what steps can you take as an applicant to "win" against this quick review? 1. Include your metro area location on your resume ❓What if I'm moving in 2 months and applying in my new location? ➡️ use the new location where you'll be working from. ❓What if I'm open to relocation? ➡️ note "open to relocation" on your resume (though this will still be seen as a risk factor). 2. Consider how your last few job titles align to the jobs you're applying for. ❓ What if my job titles don't really align with what I'm applying to but my day-to-day work did? ➡️ adjust your title and/or include context next to your title. Ex. "HR Manager (Sr. Recruiter)" if you had a general HR title but performed mostly recruiter responsibilities). ❓ What if I'm making a pivot into a new field or going back to an old one that's not related to my last few jobs? ➡️ this is where I think a summary or career highlights helps so you can bring forward those earlier experiences, and make sure that's the first thing the recruiter sees. Functional resumes can be helpful here too but there's also some bias against them, particularly if titles/employers aren't also listed. 3. Add a statement that provides company insights so the recruiter doesn't have to do much research. This can look like, "series A fintech startup", "1500-person manufacturing company specializing in sustainable materials", or "AI-powered analytics tool used by enterprise IT teams". ❓ What if I don't have strong industry alignment? ➡️ prioritize jobs that don't ask for industry alignment, or those industries where we're seeing more hiring (healthcare, construction, education), and leverage your summary or opportunities to add extra context to explain your interest/connection to the industry. For me personally, after this quick review, then I'm deep diving into other areas - specific projects you worked on, metrics that show strong performance, hard skills that align with those in the job posting, etc. And fair warning: you can make all these adjustments and still not "pass" that quick review - app volume, stronger apps, and timing can all prevent you from moving ahead. But the more alignment you show, the more likely a recruiter is to see the potential.

HONEST QUESTION: Are portfolios important for applying to gaming jobs? The basics job application package is obvious: - Resume (one-page or two-ply?)   - Cover letter - Portfolio for creative roles - designer, artist, writer But why obsess over portfolios? Because a portfolio is a SALES tool. It SELLS you to recruiters and hiring managers. Like your resume, it's supposed to induce FOMO. Your portfolio encompasses your best, most relevant work - the stuff that positions you well. This could include projects that are: - Company work  - Unique personal work   - Technically challenging work To be truly memorable, I think an effective portfolio needs a NARRATIVE. Compare these examples: Narrative 1 - "My coursework" - This candidate can follow directions and learn basics. But it doesn't showcase skills beyond the minimum coursework. Narrative 2 - "Next-gen Pokemon designs" - This candidate explored how to expand the monster taming genre - what's universal about Pokemon and where new ground lies in the trainer/Pokemon relationship. They took risks in being wrong and took a position based on imperfect information. Narrative 3 - "Replicating casual games in Unreal"  - This candidate is sharpening Unreal skills by recreating popular casual game mechanics from scratch. See the difference? The first narrative is vague and passive. The next two show focused learning processes tied to a clear interest. Be selective.  Craft a story that spotlights your abilities. For example, if I was learning 3D modelling. My portfolio could include: Option 1 - All my beginner Blender models  - NO! This is learning process, not portfolio work. Option 2 - An animated short I storyboarded, modelled, and rigged in Blender  - YES! This is a polished project that shows off new skills. Keep your portfolio crisp and narrative-driven.  Don't dump in everything you've ever made. Please do share your portfolio insights, pros! How do you keep yours focused and compelling? Let's learn together.

If I only get one shot at Google, here's how I would ensure my resume lands me the interview. I've helped 100+ professionals land interviews at top companies. Here's what separates resumes that get interviews from ones that get ignored: 1. Start with a clear, role‑aligned headline Your name → Target role → one key outcome metric Example: Priya Sharma - Finance Manager | Forecasting & Strategic Planning | 20%+ Variance Reduction This does two things: → Signals exactly who you are → Plugs keywords the ATS is looking for 2. Rewrite your professional summary to signal impact Forget generic “results‑driven professional.” Instead: → 2–3 outcome statements tied to real business value → Mention scale (revenue, budgets, teams) Example structure: “Senior Finance Manager with 8+ years driving strategic planning and financial forecasting for $150M+ P&L. Improved forecast accuracy by 18% and accelerated month‑end close by 30% through cross‑functional process redesign.” 3. Replace duties with impact bullets Here’s what Google wants to see: → What you owned → What changed because of your work → Measurable outcomes Rewrite like this: “Led annual budgeting and rolling forecasting for $200M+ business unit, reducing forecast variance from 15% to 8% in 3 cycles.” “Designed automated variance reporting that cut analyst hours by 35% and improved executive decision clarity.” 4. Use role‑specific keywords If the posting mentions: Forecasting Scenario planning GAAP compliance Cross‑functional partnership Financial modeling Your resume must mirror that language, while only using terms you can support with stories. 5. Pull the “why” forward Recruiters don’t care about what you did first. They care about why it mattered, and how it tied to business outcomes. So every bullet should follow: Action → Context → Outcome Not: Did forecasting But: Improved forecasting accuracy → by implementing driver‑based models → resulting in 12% better budget alignment across 4 business units Landing an interview at Google isn’t about luck. It’s about precision. That means: → Language that matches the job → Outcomes that prove you moved the business → Structure that machines and humans can interpret If I only had one resume to send, it would read like a case study, not a list of tasks. Save this post before you send your next application. Repost it to help someone who’s stuck in the endless apply‑and‑ignore cycle. P.S. Follow Vik Gambhir for more on how to build a solid resume and land more interviews.

I have reviewed over 200 portfolios as a hiring manager. I never spent 20 minutes on one. Here is what actually happens in 30 seconds. Second 1 to 5. I read your headline and your About section. I am answering one question: does this person do what I am hiring for? If it says "Product Designer" I have nothing. If it says "I help financial products reduce drop-off at the point of KYC" I know immediately. Second 5 to 10. I scan your case study titles. Not the content. The titles. "Redesigning the Checkout Flow" tells me nothing. "Reducing Drop-off by 34% for 2M Monthly Users" tells me everything. I have already decided whether to scroll further. Second 10 to 20. I open one case study. I read the first two sentences. If those sentences tell me what changed because of your work, I keep reading. If they tell me about your design process, I close the tab. Not because process does not matter. Because process does not differentiate you from the other 200 people in my pipeline. Second 20 to 30. I am looking for one thing. Can I picture this person doing this job? Not this job in general. This specific role. At this specific company. At this level. If the answer is yes in 30 seconds, you get shortlisted. If I have to imagine it, you do not. That is four decisions in 30 seconds. Role fit. Relevance. Impact. Level. Most portfolios fail at decision one. The headline says "Product Designer" or "UX Designer" or "Passionate about solving complex problems." All interchangeable. All forgettable. Your Figma files are not the problem. Your case study count is not the problem. Your Notion layout is not the problem. The signal that wraps the work is the problem. A recruiter running a Greenhouse or Lever pipeline can see that signal in 7 seconds before they click your name. A hiring manager sees it in 30 seconds before they open a single case study. If that signal is unclear, nothing after it matters. The work in your portfolio is strong. It usually is at your level. The question is whether anyone can tell in 30 seconds.

Can AI tell how old I am if I remove dates and early experience from my CV just by the language that I use? Not reliably. AI screening systems focus on keywords, structure, and alignment with job criteria. They do not have a built-in “age detector.” If you strip out graduation years, early career dates, and older roles, the model won’t know your age directly. Indirect clues can creep in through: 📠Outdated terminology (e.g., “MS Office” instead of “Excel”) 📠Legacy role titles no longer in use 📠Length and style of phrasing (dense, formal prose vs short, impact-driven statements) 📠Tech stack references that are dated Well-trained AI for recruitment is tuned for skills matching, not age inference. Humans, however, may subconsciously read into language choice. Modernising phrasing, focusing on achievements in the last 10–15 years, and using current role titles/tech terms reduces those signals. Checklist of common CV “age giveaways” you can neutralise: ➡️ Outdated tech references Avoid: “Microsoft Office,” “Lotus Notes,” “Word Processing,” “Typing speed.” Use: “Excel (advanced),” “Google Workspace,” “Power BI,” “Slack,” etc. ➡️ Old job titles Avoid: “Secretary,” “Personnel Manager,” “Webmaster,” “Marketing Executive.” Use current equivalents: “Executive Assistant,” “HR Business Partner,” “Digital Marketing Manager.” ➡️ Dated business language Avoid: “Responsible for,” “Duties included,” “Synergy,” “Blue-sky thinking.” Use: Action verbs + outcomes (“Delivered,” “Increased,” “Cut costs by”). ➡️ Overly formal phrasing Avoid long, academic sentences. Use concise, impact-driven bullets. ➡️ Timeline giveaways Avoid listing jobs past 15 years unless critical. Cut graduation years unless very recent. ➡️ Skills section Avoid: “Fax,” “Switchboard,” “WordPerfect,” “Outlook Express.” Use: Current platforms, digital tools, collaboration suites. ➡️ Career summary Avoid: “Seasoned professional with 30 years of experience.” Use: “Proven leader in X with a track record of delivering Y results.” ➡️ Layout and style Avoid: Dense paragraphs, serif fonts, no white space. Use: Modern clean layout, bullet points, easy to scan. For me, it's not about "hiding" your age. It's about leading with relevance. ____________________________________________________________ 👠 If your wardrobe moved on, your CV should too. 🪩 Grey hair optional. Grey CV? Never.

I’ve reviewed > 400 portfolios this year. Observation #1: The ones that got interviews weren’t the prettiest. They were the clearest. → Clear intent (what roles they’re targeting) → Clear structure (who they helped + what changed) → Clear thinking (how they made decisions) Observation #2: Hiring managers responded best to portfolios that made it easy to scan, not admire. → 3-5 second headlines that told the story → Metrics up top, visuals in the middle, lessons at the end → Less storytelling. More signal. Observation #3: The portfolios that ‘failed’? → Opened with “Hi, I’m Alex and I love solving problems” → Contained 30+ screenshots with no explanation → Didn’t articulate business impact or their role → Had no opinion, no POV, no process If I were applying today? → I’d restructure my case studies to lead with outcomes → I’d add a design philosophy section to show how I think → I’d cut 40% of the fluff and focus on what actually matters → I’d communicate my USP and elevator pitch up front Your portfolio isn’t a gallery. It’s a business case for why you’re worth hiring. ----- Just thought I'd share this after reviewing some notes over the weekend. Hope it helps! ----- #ux #tech #design #ai #business #careers

I have been speaking to a lot of testers and I am noticing a pattern in the questions that are being asked in the testing interviews. The interesting part is not the answer. It is the question itself. Interview questions are rarely neutral. They reveal what the organisation respects, what it measures, and what it quietly expects a tester to tolerate. They also reveal whether the interview is designed to understand testing, or whether it is designed to pressure the candidate, anchor salary, or outsource accountability. This is where recruiters, hiring managers, and interviewers come in, because an interview is not only a screening tool. It is also a public signal of your culture. Candidates decide whether to join you long before you send an offer letter, and a surprising number of strong testers walk away because the questions told them they would be treated as a rubber stamp, a scapegoat, or a cheap automation factory. When a candidate hears “Why do you want to stay in testing instead of moving to development?” they do not hear curiosity. They hear that testing is seen as second class work. When they hear “Can you guarantee a bug free release?” they hear that you do not understand risk, and you might be shopping for someone to blame. When they hear “Our automation percentage is low, how will you increase it?” they hear that you are chasing vanity numbers instead of meaningful coverage. When they hear “Do you have a thick skin?” they hear that disrespect is normalised. When the first round starts with “What is your current CTC?” before you have even aligned on scope and expectations, they hear that cost matters more than capability. I have compiled a list of such red flag questions and grouped them into themes such as respect for testing, automation traps, culture and ethics, work life balance and remote control signals, and salary games. If you are a tester, you can use the list to probe deeper before you accept an offer. If you are a recruiter, hiring manager, or interviewer, use it as a quick audit of what your interview process is accidentally advertising. If any of these questions are part of your script, you are not filtering candidates. You are filtering out good ones. If you have heard other red flag questions, add them too. The fastest way to improve hiring is to stop asking questions that reveal dysfunction, and start asking questions that reveal judgment, collaboration, and risk thinking. #softwaretesting #softwareengineering #hiring #qualityengineering #brijeshsays