Do resumes actually tell you if someone can do the job?
Something I keep thinking about:
We still hire mostly off résumés — a one-page document someone wrote about themselves. But a resume can't really show if a person can do the actual work, solve real problems, or handle pressure. Yet it's usually the first and biggest filter.
I've seen teams spend weeks interviewing candidates who looked great on paper but couldn't do the job, while genuinely skilled people got filtered out because their résumé didn't sell them well.
Curious what this community thinks:
- Do you actually trust résumés, or are they just a habit at this point?
- If not résumés, what would you rather see before deciding to interview someone?
- For those who hire: what's the single most useless part of your current process?
Would love honest takes, especially from people who hire regularly.
Replies
@rahulreddy01 Have you changed the way you hire because of experiences like this?
@niamh_byrne1 Yes. Every hiring experience has pushed me further toward skill-first hiring. We've interviewed candidates with exceptional resumes who struggled in practical work, and we've also seen talented people overlooked because they weren't good at presenting themselves on paper. That's the problem I'm interested in solving.
@rahulreddy01 If you could remove one hiring step tomorrow, what would it be?
@sebastian_patterson If I had to remove one step, it would be using resumes as the primary screening filter. I'd replace it with a short, role-specific skill assessment that gives every candidate a fair opportunity to demonstrate what they can actually do.
WebCurate.co
I think resumes are useful, but only as a starting point.
They can tell you what someone has done, but not necessarily how well they can do the job. Real projects, portfolios, and practical tasks usually give a much better picture of someone's abilities.
@hosseinyazdi I largely agree. Resumes are useful for context, but they shouldn't carry the most weight. Projects, practical assessments, and structured interviews provide much stronger signals about whether someone can succeed in the role.
@rahulreddy01 Yep, they tell a lot about a person. A well-formatted resume shows how organized the profile is. I see how much content is repeated, based on the profile, are the outcomes shown? Is the profile aware of the attributes it's emitting? Some red flags are display pictures on a resume, someone rating their own skills, and brand logos. I'd like to see a video of just one question: "Tell me about yourself." Most of the time, the intro call really shows a lot about communication, storytelling skills, and so on. Scanning through hundreds of resumes and portfolios is the most useless and time-consuming part.
@roopesh_donde I agree that resumes can reveal professionalism, communication, and attention to detail. I just question whether they've become a proxy for actual ability. A great resume should get someone's foot in the door, but I don't think it should decide who gets the opportunity. I'd much rather see a short skill demonstration, project, or structured assessment alongside it.
You're right. The process is dated, maybe even broken. Within a week, the number of applications for a profile can be in the thousands. It's humanly impossible to screen all those resumes. Good profiles don't even get seen — it's just luck. Talenser has great potential here. For coding or tech roles, we have an assessment, but for jobs like sales or design, recruiters hire for personality. We've hired people who show potential to learn, even if they have less experience — this is a real gap.
@roopesh_donde Thanks, Roopesh. Really appreciate the encouragement for Talenser. You highlighted an important challenge—different roles need different ways to evaluate talent. That's exactly what we're exploring as we build Talenser. We're still early, so feedback from experienced product builders, recruiters, and hiring managers like you is incredibly valuable in shaping a better hiring experience.