RAPPORT
WWW.RECORDINGACHIEVEMENT.AC.UK
Issue 2 (2015)
Agreement about the relevance of recruitment
information
Recruiters and students both agreed that the
following items are relevant in the recruitment
process: a description of activities and
responsibilities in (former) positions, a description
of education, a description of professional goals
and aspirations, a validated competence
assessment, testimonials of former employers,
and copies of obtained certificates/ diplomas. The
items were, however, not all valued equally by
students and recruiters. A description of education
was valued the same. A description of (extracurricular) activities and responsibilities in
(former) positions, a description of professional
goals and aspirations, and the results of a
validated competence assessment were valued
more by recruiters than by students. Testimonials
of former employers and copies of obtained
certificates/ diplomas, on the other hand, were
valued higher by students than by recruiters.
Results of a free online competence or personality
test were not considered relevant by both groups.
Disagreement about the relevance of
recruitment information
Students and recruiters were divided about the
inclusion of several items. Recruiters thought that
products or designs, as well as a skill video should
be part of a Career Portfolio, whereas students
thought they should not. Students, however,
thought a list of grades as relevant for the
recruitment process, contrary to recruiters.
Recruiters and students were both asked whether
they would include additional elements in the
Career Portfolio. Most recruiters (86.7%) did not
want to review additional elements other than
those surveyed. Two recruiters mentioned that
they would also like to review links to social
media. Students did not suggest any additional
elements.
Discussion and Conclusions
This study investigated relevant information in the
recruitment process according to students and
recruiters. Results show that students and
recruiters agreed about the relevance of most of
the information items. They agreed, for example,
about the relevance of a description of
professional goals and aspirations, the results of
a validated competence assessment and about
the irrelevance of a free personality and/or
competence test. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we
found that the latter (which is included in many
commercial Career Portfolio systems) was not
valued as a relevant Career Portfolio constituent
by neither students and recruiters. This can be
explained by the implied low quality of the free
tests, rather than a lack of interest in personality
or competence levels. This argument is
corroborated by the popularity of the validated
competence assessment, which reflects the
interest in hard-to-verify data. Furthermore, these
generic tests often do not reflect the specific
competence requirements of organisations. As
such, major companies have typically developed
their own assessments which cater to their
specific needs.
These results support the notion that both low
bandwidth information and high bandwidth
information are crucial in the job matching
process; according to students and recruiters a
Career Portfolio’s relevant constituents fit both
categories.
Descriptive
information
about
educational and employment history is recurring
(low bandwidth), but also descriptions of
professional goals and aspirations, as well as the
outcomes of a competence assessment (high
bandwidth). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is partially
confirmed.
In the case of traditional CV’s, it is challenging to
make informed decisions. Information on quality,
motivation and “fit” generally lack evidence-based
support. This could explain why recruiters favour
such elements as a validated competence
assessment, or a design or product. These items
fit the concept of Career Portfolio, which shows
achievements in relation to particular work or
developmental goals. As stated by Barrett and
Carney (2005), in high stakes environments like a
job application, the information provided needs to
be validated by a trained reviewer using a welldeveloped rubric with identifiable and specific
criteria.
While recruiters and students were in agreement
on the in- or exclusion of most of the items, an
interesting pattern emerges when comparing the
average scores for each item. Recruiters prefer
to review high bandwidth information (for
example, competence assessment) whereas
students valued low bandwidth information higher