Should candidates be eliminated because of a résumé typo?
Before I share my opinion on the matter, I thought I would first lay the groundwork for how frequent typos are and which ones are the most prevalent. We took a sample of over 10,000 resumes and discovered that 7.5% of them were flagged for a “common language” typo. This means that there was a clearly misspelled word somewhere within the resume (as opposed to incorrect word usage which we’ll probably look at later). These typos were clearly the fault of the resume writer. The 7.5% with typos averaged 1.3 typos per resume.
(full list below)
As for my opinion on the subject…
I think resume typos should not be the sole factor that eliminates a candidate. It should perhaps put a “proceed with caution” on the applicant, but all candidate leads should be vetted beyond a single factor. Some managers are extremely hypersensitive to spelling and grammar on resumes and I understand that. They’re formal documents and should be meticulously crafted. However, in my experience, grammar and spelling do not have a direct correlation to employee production or intelligence. Typos for me would be near the bottom of my list of candidate consideration factors. They might serve as a tiebreaker between two seemingly equal candidates but nothing more. Relevancy, intent, and validity of the resume are the most important qualities I look for.
(And regarding the word “resume”, taking the time to include all the necessary acute accents over the e’s would have apparently taken me too long.)