The age barrier is something we’ve discussed before. Some employers look at a resume, see lengthy experience, judge the candidate as “over qualified” and toss the paper into the circular file. Dumb, dumb, dumb… but if that’s you we’re talking about, what can you do?
A reader asks The Forum:
Career professionals are telling older and more experienced people that have been “workforce-reduced” to remove information from their resume that makes them look over-qualified. (For example, shorten the work history, take off any graduate degrees unless needed for a particular job, omit industry-specific credentials.) Many experienced professionals are looking for an edge when applying for lower-level jobs and seem to be taking such advice. The goal of reducing the information on the resume is to get to the interview and then sell yourself to the hiring manager.
How do HR professionals view candidates that try to look less experienced? Do you think that this approach is a valid way to get to an interview? Thanks!
Should you mung your resume to… ahem… appear younger, less experienced and less intimidating to an employer? You guys go first… but I can’t wait to dive into this one. (And if you work in HR, what do HR professionals think of this approach to getting an interview? And why does HR avoid “over-qualified” applicants? Is less better? Do “career professionals” really tell people to devolve to get hired?? Can you be too good-looking, too smart, too experienced, too willing to take a lower salary? What is this world coming to?)