Lost art of interviewing…

For the first time in several years, I find myself on the other side of the interview table as the interviewer. With every passing candidate, I ask myself, “What the heck is wrong with people today?”

Perhaps I live in a world that has passed me by.  Though I can’t believe that in just a few short years that the art of interviewing has been turned on its head.  Are candidates no longer required to proofread their resumes for spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and a slew of other visible flaws?  Does merely knowing how to spell a certain skill (and often, not correctly) qualify you as having experience or being an expert?  Do jeans, tennis shoes, and a polo shirt now pass for “dressing to impress”?

Am I being old-fashioned for expecting a resume absent of spelling mistakes and for candidates to show up in a suit, or at a minimum, business appropriate attire?  The interview itself is another area where I’ve found myself shaking my head at some of the answers being provided. Perhaps I myself misunderstand the purpose behind an interview. Am I incorrect in believing the interview is an opportunity for a candidate to put themselves in the best light possible, to explain their experience and knowledge, and to voice the reasons they would be an asset to the company they’re interviewing at?

I remember the days when recruiters would scrutinize your resume with a fine-tooth comb, help you make corrections, updates, and recommended modifications before they would even present you for consideration.  In addition, they would ensure you knew the basic rules… show up 15 minutes early, dress in a suit, speak clearly and confidently, and most importantly, tell the truth.

I understand that times have changed and in the age of electronics, the competition that recruiters and candidates face has increased dramatically.  Perhaps there’s no time to spend sprucing up candidates, or perhaps it’s just a mentality that’s permeating our culture today that “dressing up” is an old value.  That may be true, but candidates need to realize that the person(s) on the other side of the table were very likely raised with those old values.

Would love to hear your thoughts and opinions.