I struggle to fill higher skilled QC positions with trained individuals. From a recruiting standpoint, what has worked (or hasn't) for you?
My last search for engineer warranted a lot of resumes, but few who actually had the skills or degree required. We're about to embark on a posting for an advanced CMM programmer, and am hoping to shake some different trees than we have in the past.
Thanks in advance.
Listing skills and the required paperwork is one thing...many people think or say they have it:
- Degree type required
- Ability to program in [insert programming language]
- Able to read engineering drawings
- And so on...
There is very little here that provides insight into WHO the candidate is.
I like to include characteristics and soft skills that are aligned with who I am (if I'm going to be their supervisor) and with the organization:
- Independent, self-movtivated
- Able to juggle multiple priorities and lead projects with overlapping timelines
- Communicates in the language of the audience
- Able to coach and mentor junior team members so that delegation of activities can confidently occur
Stuff like that doesn't appear on most resumes - and I wish it did.
When I scan resumes, I also look for more than WHAT they did, I look for HOW they did it (always alone or always with a team are red flags for me) and HOW it added value (I don't care if you revamped the engineering drawing library...tell me how it helped with drawing control, time to locate a drawing, etc.).
I also look for keywords - this can be accomplished electronically; if a certain % of the keywords aren't there (depends on the amount of resumes received), they aren't looked at.
I look at their work experience and tenure with those companies...a new company every couple of years (especially if there isn't a demonstrated promotion) is a red flag.
Skills and the paperwork are nice, don't get me wrong, but it's important to look for other stuff, as well.