One applicant has sent a resume in which he lists all his previous jobs.
A number of the positions appear to be connected with temping agencies, as the applicant lists the position, the name of the company, and then underneath in brackets ‘via [name of temping agency]’
Under each of these positions, it then says ‘mitigated’.
What does this mean? That a temporary contract was terminated?
Is it standard U.S. usage? Or standard U.K. usage?
My boss and I are both baffled, and DopeHelp would be much appreciated.
I think it means he doesn’t know the meaning of the word “mitigated,” and/or he doesn’t know the importance of making everything on your resume clear and easy to understand for someone in the same or similar field.
I’d be tempted to call him in for an interview just to hear his explanation when you ask him what the hell that means.
It means the resume goes in the trash, as far as I’m concerned. If you’re going to use big words on a resume, you’d damn well better be sure you know what they mean and use them correctly. Though, like AnnieChrist, I’m rather curious about what he thought it meant.
And risk passing on an otherwise potentially ideal candidate? It’s your business, so you can do as you wish, but you may be giving a more thoughtful competitor a leg up.
Absolutely. The whole point of a resume is to make a first impression; if you can’t be bothered to take the time to ensure your resume gives me a favorable first impression then I don’t want you working for me. MHO, of course.
It’s not a dialect-based difference in usage, is it? I’ve seen some usages in Indian English that are very different than those of my dialect: use of the expression “viz.” instead of “for example”, for example.
I think that’s the whole point. If I can’t decipher your resume, it doesn’t matter if it is because your resume sucks, I’m stupid or if there’s a cultural/linguistic barrier – we’re having communication issues from the beginning. Could be an accident, but it should be a red flag. Not necessarily pass on the candidate but still.
I am glad to see my competitors are so absorbed in picking nits, they don’t want to take the time to ask a single question. One word, in an otherwise good resume? Must be nice to have the luxury to make snap judgements and never look look beyond the surface. Business must be good, eh?
That’s hardly specific to Indian English. It’s another abbreviation for a Latin term, like “i.e.”, “e.g.” and “etc.” videlicet, meaning ‘in other words’.
I don’t think I’d discard the resume outright if the guy otherwise was a good candidate. But if I called him back, I’d ask him about it. And his answer would matter. If he said some nonsense that meant he had no idea what the word meant, I’d consider that a black mark. If he indicated that he was just trying to sound real, real smart, that would be a negative, too.
Of course, the job you’re trying to fill makes a big difference. A warehouse worker or a magazine editor? With one, I could overlook an egregious word misuse on a resume if he’s good otherwise. For the other, not so much.
You might be, but already you know this candidate either doesn’t know how to express himself, or doesn’t proof-read.
If you have 50+ candidates, why spend more time on this one? Unless you want to give more efficient competitors an edge.
We’re presumably talking about one side of A4; which is intended to inspire busy employers to spend their time interviewing you and give you a good job.
A sensible applicant makes absolutely certain that their CV is neatly typed, spell-checked, well laid out and clear.
Yes, just one word out of place can show they lack something.
One of my mates is a company director. When he gets 100+ CV’s, he starts by immediately discarding:
all handwritten ones
all those with spelling mistakes
all those with inaccuracies
Next comes the weeding of those with not quite the right experience / qualifications / talent.
An applicant can’t do much about not having the qualifications, but can certainly make sure the presentation is perfect.
I think it is jolly nice that your company offers employment to the illiterate. Maybe you can get some federal money to subsidize them.
I’ve read lots of Indian English, and I’ve never seen “mitigate” used. A resume would have to be superior in many other aspects for me to be interested. I’m not sure I’d be willing to hire someone careless about this important document. What would he or she do under pressure?
Now I might send the person an email saying “That word doesn’t mean what you think it means” though.
I am not sure who this is directed towards, but to be fair, the OP did ask that question as opposed to discarding the resume, and the only person who suggested to do so has been Q.E.D.. I merely suggested it should be a red flag. You have to make assumptions in life or you will not have time to accomplish anything. When you are in a situation where a common word is used in an unusual manner, and you feel it might be incorrect you can do one of three things
Assume it is correct and you just don’t know this usage
Assume it is incorrect and the person is misusing it
Proceed without making an assumption
Now I have seen enough intelligent and informed posts by Q.E.D. to say that for him defaulting to #2 is a lot less arrogant than for the majority of other people. You also have to consider that the OP mentioned “temping agencies” which for a lot of people is already a red flag (perhaps undeservingly so), and in my eyes seeing “mitigated” next to a temping agency position in a resume, as opposed to, for example, a research position in an academic cv, makes me lean towards #2 as well. No offense towards anybody intended.
