Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
I wouldn't be so sanguine about it, for the following reasons:1. MS got heat for the LinkedIn deal because users believe that MS was doing it to gain access to LI users' data, in the same vein as Google and Facebook have been mining data for years because they own the platforms. Sure, as a business case, this was a good deal for MS, but LI users should still realize that what they put on LI will now be owned by MS at some point.2. The article assumes that hiring managers know what they're looking for. Despite advances in technology, like LI, many hiring managers still don't have a clue what they want. In IT, especially, laundry lists of skills are up there because, partially, HR is dumber than the hiring managers, but stupid is as stupid does (from the hiring managers).3. Though you might have a universal resume, will that necessarily negate the problem of "local resources only," that employers are wont to do anymore, because they don't want to pay for people out of town?
Author of the piece might be onto something, or not. My singular observation that he seems to miss is the 'Combo Job Posting'. HR dinks are inherently lazy, its why they are in HR. So when they get 4 reqs from say the IT department do they complete and post 4 openings? Some do. But a lot don't. They take the requirements of those reqs and mash them together and let a single opening. (HR Dink: See! I saved a ton of posting fees!)The outcome of course is a resume request that few if any individuals can match (eg: 10yrs MS SQL, 15yrs Java, 10yrs+ C++, 5yrs dBaseIII). Hell I can't match that and I have been in the IT biz 35 years. Yet I saw this very posting three years ago from a former employer! LinkedIn won't solve that kind of insanity.
Post a Comment