I suppose all these work great if you’re looking for a paper candidate or a “one-trick-pony” to do a single task. If you need anything more than a drone, it might be time to expand your ideas of what constitutes a “good” candidate versus a “good” employee that can flex with an increasingly dynamic reality in business and in the world.

Anyone culled for short-sighted reasons like the “only include experience that fits the narrow job description” probably doesn’t really want to work in that organization unless they’re desperate or BRAND NEW to the job world.

These sort of myopic methods to cull resumes display that the gatekeeper (and probably the hiring manager) leave so little opportunity for creative cross-functional solutions that the job would bore a dynamic, creative, multi-talented person. It’s likely that many employers complain about not being able to find dynamic, creative talent.

Job Descriptions always include “other duties as assigned,” so why paint diverse experience with such a broadly negative brush?

The practices outlined in this article are emblematic of what is failing in recruiting. If a reader takes them and gets a job, that job could quickly head down the path outlined in the book “Bullshit Jobs.”

There is a better way to recruit and evaluate applicants. With these benchmarks, we should all just give up. Between algorithms trashing resumes and people doing the same thing… there is no hope. Good luck! You’re really gonna need luck.