Paper vs. People

Are you your resume? I don't think so.

A resume is a brief snapshot of our work history. If the candidate lacks a certain requirement, the recruiter should ask if the candidate has experience in that area. It might have just been left out intentionally. For example, "The candidate has never sold anything" might be that the candidate carried a sales position in a company and didn't include it in the resume. "The candidate has never mentored anyone!" The candidate elected not to put that on the resume. We are taught to "be direct and get to the point" and a resume should be a light overview of the work history and basic contact information.

Does a piece of paper accurately predict what results a new employee will generate in a new role? Not without personal contact to "peel the onion open" to see what's driving the candidate, how results are created, what the motivation is, etc. The better recruiters will explore the best fit that is essential to placing the top candidate for your company in a critical position. If your recruiter is "worth his or her salt" they will explore the candidate's background in detail and identify the requirements needed to fill the position. Recruiters don't want to waste time with the wrong candidate.

Start a search with clearly defined requirements and then pass them along to the recruiter. They will identify those requirements and work accordingly. Recruiters want to get the right candidate and make the placement. More then likely if they have spent time with the candidate and submitted them, it's because the candidate matched the given requirements.