I don't enjoy the genre of hiring managers writing self-servicing articles like this. I think a lot the issues they might face in receiving applications are on their end. For instance, are applicants writing "to whom it may concern" because they lack details on the position? Most applicants probably would like to turn in the best application they could, where is the mutual disconnect preventing them from meeting your expectations?
I had similar thoughts. It seems the post is more than a couple years old (and it's certainly fair to apply via email) but is hiring really done by a manager opening up raw emails?
Unless they are exceptionally talented and seeking an either high level, high impact, differentiated or early role, jobseekers don’t have the luxury of researching every company to which they apply. Especially, when that company will not return equivalent courtesy.
Unless interested, such companies will not respond to every applicant with a personal letter.
Let’s be practical. I am a sysadmin/network engineer/developer. I am very good at what I do. I honestly don’t care where I work. My work will be largely the same. If I applied as a product manager or a sufficiently senior developer, then yes I would be far more selective.
There’s another word for receiving resumes in the personal mailbox, which is spam. If the company has a jobs@ email address, it should have a workflow process attached so there’s no need to spam the unpublished email address to get someone’s attention.
So, items 3,4,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15 are invalid.
Item 8 is a cliche. Item 15 is out of the sender’s control.
Let’s review.
1. Questionable. Corporate marketing is different from social media marketing. They have social media professionals on their team.
2. Agreed. Applying for work that creates portfolio without said portfolio makes no sense.
3. Personalizing email greetings is not a good use of time. You can get to know each other on second contact.
4. They are following your process. If your hiring inbox is not used for hiring, then solve your broken process. I would hate to receive resume spam as a team member.
5. Agreed.
6. Applying to companies is inhuman. Setup a process to automatically process blank emails with attachments. Many of them will be pure spam.
7. You’re asking for a marketing document from people who are not trained in copy writing. I can tell the article is written by someone in marketing for whom communication is second nature. It’s a difficult skill that people outside marketing rarely possess.
8. The seeker is asking if you have unadvertised openings. It is an annoying cliché, but they don’t know any better and are likely following someone’s advice.
9. See point 7. The original meaning of information technology still means just that. It has been hijacked to mean something else, but it remains valid and frankly irrelevant to hiring.
10. That’s just someone trying too hard. See point 7.
11. There should be no emails sent that cannot be replied to. Stop using no-reply@ when responding. That’s the number 1 thing I hate.
12. That’s actually a positive signal. The person took the time to find you on LinkedIn.
13. Attaching a document preserves formatting and eliminates copy/paste errors. Attaching a traceable link lets me see you opened my resume. In light of point 1, you should be welcoming this.
14. There’s nothing wrong with taking a cue from Elle Woods about customizing a resume. You can see that the person is creative.
15. Email virus checkers are often out of the sender’s control. You can at least be certain they will follow your endpoint security policies.
So, setup a workflow to process incoming resumes, respond to every applicant who took the time to personalize their application, and you will miss fewer hires.
It really does feel like a lot of the points are the author's pet peeves.
In one point he complains about being added on LinkedIn, but on a previous one he says he expects applicants to find his direct email and send him a note. This makes me feel like he wants people to make the effort to appease him. That has little to do with their ability to do their job. As an applicant, I would see that as "ego" and a potential red flag on the management team.
