for a strong, fast pick-me-up
This story in The Onion today shows how a quick skim proof-read is not enough to catch errors.
I link to the story at the end of this post. In summary it’s about how a Marketing company says it received “the worst job application” riddled with errors such as the applicant’s claim that he was
While I heartily agree with the need for a slower,more methodical PROOF-READ – I’d like to add that often the companies advertising jobs (and the recruiters they hire) also present JOB DESCRIPTIONS riddled with mistakes.
Here’s an earlier post about how BAD JOB ADs – calling for
It’s not just the applicants who show they are not “detail-orinted”!
If you work in recruitment or if your organisation hires people directly – you MUST take the time to check your external writing.
The writing reflects the professionalism and reputation of your organisation and (if you are a recruiter) your client.
I understand that the recruitment industry is currently in turmoil and many people in the job of recruiting others are themselves losing their jobs.
Recruiters or the “initial screeners” in the selection process are often so quick to judge about any mistakes in job applications – and yet often the job descriptions are riddled with errors.
I understand that in the recruitment process – fewer people are having to do more work.
However – it’s vital that you take the time to try to reduce the errors in your writing.
I am a real word nerd. I carefully analyse how professionals express themselves in places such as Linked In. I also analyse the quality of writing in the recruitment industry.
Some of my favourite business bloggers are from the Recruitment Industry. I study and learn from their style and they give me so many insights about changing industry trends.
I’m “old-school” and I’ll often take the time to send a quick message to these talented writers to let them know someone notices and appreciates their quality writing.
I also notice appalling mistakes littering most descriptions from many Recruiters.
Some from this morning:
and other mistakes:
Often the mistakes are in the first few lines readers read. What a bad first impression!
Now, sometimes the mistakes are made by the recruiters. Sometimes the mistakes may be in original material supplied by a client.
My point is that it’s up to the recruiter to check and correct any mistakes – because the bad writing reflects on the Recruiter AND the client.
Maybe I worry too much about at least trying to reduce mistakes.
Maybe I should give up caring – the way it seems many organisations have given up worrying about quality control.
Then again, when I read good writing from Recruiters – it encourages me that some professionals still care. The good writing makes me think this organisation is probably as efficient and professional as its writing.
What do you think? Am I expecting too much?
Does the “new normal” of business mean we can’t expect the same quality as pre-GFC?
We all make mistakes – but at least we should try to minimise the number of mistakes that slip through.
If you are interested, here’s a previous rant about quality control.
AND HERE’S THE LINK TO THE ONION STORY THAT INSPIRED THIS POST THIS MORNING:
If you enjoyed this post – Let’s connect:
If you found this post interesting you can follow me and connect with me.
I blog about fun pop culture stuff as well as more serious business communication tips.
I’ve disciplined my self to check ALL my different communication platforms twice a day – as part of my Check-in Ritual.
Linked In – under Tony Biancotti