[ChrisMarshallNY]

This is one of those “it depends” areas.

The author is talking about a fairly “classic” approach. I was a hiring manager for a long time, and had a similar (but more flexible) worldview. It may not age well.

I personally think that being able to leverage AI tools will be an important skillset, in the future, and would not disqualify AI submissions, right off the bat (but maybe not consider them a “leg up,” either). They will just be part of the landscape, going forward. A lot of “classic” résumé advice isn’t really much better than what ChatGPT will provide, anyway. For example, he rails against “Buzzword Bingo.” I hate that, too, but it is also a “classic” CV technique, and many professional submissions will be absolutely packed with jargon.

I just think that there isn’t any way to avoid having to dedicate some real time and effort to screening applicants. In my case, it was something that I took very seriously. I had to fight like crazy to get headcount, and I was hiring pretty high-functioning people for a small, rather “elite” team. I really can’t relate to having to sort through hundreds of CVs of folks right out of school.

[verve_rat]

The problem is that there are two types of roles you need to fill. The first type is the role where you need the best you can get, it is worth passing on good candidates to try to get the great ones.

The second type are the roles where you just need someone that passes the minimum bar, good enough will do.

Problem is, everyone thinks that their role, their company, can only operate with the first type, where really most of them are the second type.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, in my case, it was definitely the first type. It was the nature of my team.

Like I said, I can't relate to the other type, but that doesn't make it any less valid. It's just my personal journey.