- Home
- News
- Features
- Topics
- Labor
- Management
- Opinions/Blogs
- Tools & Resources
By R. DAVID WENDELL– A new study by TheLadders job board suggests recruiters spend just six seconds reviewing a resume before deciding if the candidate is a good fit.
Despite most recruiters self-reporting that they spend at least four minutes reviewing a resume, the results revealed that they devote only a fraction of that time. The study assessed dozens of professional recruiters during a 10-week period.
The first formal quantitative study of recruiters’ on-the-job behavior is available for download at TheLadders blog.
Alexandre Douzet
“We knew that the resume is obviously the cornerstone of the job-search process, but we wanted to really understand and facilitate the most meaningful connections between recruiters and job seekers,” said Alex Douzet, chief operating officer and co-founder of TheLadders.
“Our groundbreaking eye-tracking study provides valuable insight around a fundamental question: ‘How do recruiters and hiring managers actually make decisions about candidates?’ Now that we know, we can more efficiently and effectively help our more-than 5 million members find the right match.”
“Eye tracking” is a scientific technique analyzing where and how long a person focuses when digesting information. TheLadders recorded recruiter behavior as they viewed online profiles, different types of resumes, and other forms of candidate information.
One part of the study — “gaze tracking” technology — showed that recruiters spent almost 80% of their resume-review time on the following data points, respectively: name, current title/company, previous title/company, previous position’s start and end dates, current position’s start and end dates, and education.
The findings provided specific data regarding the following: individual resumes and online profile details; specific items that captured recruiters’ attention during reviews; how long recruiters spent viewing each item; how quickly their eyes moved from item to item; and what content was overlooked.