Is it wanky to put my photo on my cv?

[TheoriginalLEM]

I needed to quickly do a cv for a job interview that i have already secured.

So to prompt myself to include everything in some sort if order i used a template from word. I normally just do a plain document. Anyway the document came together well and there was space for a photo. I take a terrible picture so its definately not vanity, but the picture shows me at work looking happy and its very relevant to the post.

Two questions.

1. Are they going to think im lazy using the template (i was a bit) and will i stand out for the wrong reasons?

1. I now have my cv written out so could effectively ping it out to jobs im half interested in. Do i leave the pic/template or do i go back to sober cv?

Yabu - wanker
Yanbu - will stand out positively

@rainkeepsfallingdown

The only time it's acceptable to include photos is if you're an actor, and they're headshots.

Or, if it's a marketing CV for clients. Not a CV for employers.

...or you are applying for a job in mainland Europe, where it is required...

Though with Brexit looming this seems ever more unlikely!

I absolutely wouldn’t include a photo, and even if I did I wouldn’t send one with a dirty top, unkempt hair etc! If I was the employer I would think that a) you don’t understand context (as in, when it is and isn’t appropriate to dress down) and b) you couldn’t even be bothered to put in the effort at application stage, never mind the job if and when you got it.

Most of the jobs I’ve applied for, and the ones I’ve recruited for, have a first sift where names, ages, gender, ethnicity and any disabilities are removed so candidates chosen for interview are solely on the basis of their application statements/qualifications. So a photo would be sifted out at this stage anyway.

I wouldn't include a photo. If you're applying for others jobs though, I'd always tailor the CV to the vacancy.

It's very vain and wanky particularly if you are half good looking.

I really wish they would get rid of the photos here because they definitely do discriminate on grounds of race. But then again, they can tell by the name (or at list make an assumption) what the person's background might be.
If you look around in this country you'd be very very hard pressed to find someone black or asian or from Eastern Europe in a professional role.

You would have found me, years ago (1983 to be exact), hired as a black person by the German Ministry of Justice for a fantastic Civil Service job, the only non-white miles around. If you can convince them race is irrelevant.

I sometimes found my race to be actually to my advantage.

I was hired again in Germany at age 63. It was the quickest hiring I ever experienced, right there during the interview! So my age was also not a strike against me.

It’s so far from the norm in the UK that you shouldn’t do it. Besides anything else, you give the person receiving it lots of information they can use to discriminate against you, especially since cvs tend to be requested by private companies or smaller firms which are less scrupulous about discrimination than the public sector.

Is the boss worried about having to pay for maternity leave? He can tell from your photo if the application is from a woman of childbearing age, and quietly find a reason not to interview. Is the recruiter racist? You’ve shown them your ethnicity from the off. They think older people have more health problems? Again.

This is why in the public sector we have blind recruitment - when I see applications (where we ask for the same specific information from everybody) all personal information is stripped out so I can’t tell what anyone’s protected characteristics are.

I see people are saying that they meet you at interview so can discriminate then. This is true, but it’s much harder to justify decisions taken at this stage - we have to keep notes etc and use these to score interviewees against criteria. So just seeing that someone is a woman under 40 wouldn’t be able to be used against her, there would need to be legitimate, concrete reasons for her score.

Shocking I know but not everyone is on Facebook cheese.

I’ve always found that those people that include a photo are the ones who think they’re attractive and that it’ll likely help them along. Don’t do it. It’ll count against a candidate in my own head.

This is why in the public sector we have blind recruitment - when I see applications (where we ask for the same specific information from everybody) all personal information is stripped out so I can’t tell what anyone’s protected characteristics are.

I'm actually a little surprised by this. I was under the impression that companies keep emphasising that they are are "inclusive" and that they are specifically looking out for BAME or LGBT applicants, expecially trans people? I know for a fact that many publishers are now putting out calls for writers that fall in those two categories. I may be wrong about this; my info is mainly from SM and MN.

I think it's fine. I recruited for my last job and we got a few photo CVs. I googled all the short listed applicants anyway (as is pretty standard), so I knew what they looked like.

@AdoptAdaptImprove

It’s so far from the norm in the UK that you shouldn’t do it. Besides anything else, you give the person receiving it lots of information they can use to discriminate against you, especially since cvs tend to be requested by private companies or smaller firms which are less scrupulous about discrimination than the public sector.

Is the boss worried about having to pay for maternity leave? He can tell from your photo if the application is from a woman of childbearing age, and quietly find a reason not to interview. Is the recruiter racist? You’ve shown them your ethnicity from the off. They think older people have more health problems? Again.

This is why in the public sector we have blind recruitment - when I see applications (where we ask for the same specific information from everybody) all personal information is stripped out so I can’t tell what anyone’s protected characteristics are.

I see people are saying that they meet you at interview so can discriminate then. This is true, but it’s much harder to justify decisions taken at this stage - we have to keep notes etc and use these to score interviewees against criteria. So just seeing that someone is a woman under 40 wouldn’t be able to be used against her, there would need to be legitimate, concrete reasons for her score.

You can tell all of this from googling someone though.

Dear god do not put a photo on your CV

For many organisations they won't allow it or reject those with photos as they try to have blind recruitment

It's super wanky

Not if you don’t have their name, which we don’t! It’s all by candidate numbers.

@Lamahaha

This is why in the public sector we have blind recruitment - when I see applications (where we ask for the same specific information from everybody) all personal information is stripped out so I can’t tell what anyone’s protected characteristics are.

I'm actually a little surprised by this. I was under the impression that companies keep emphasising that they are are "inclusive" and that they are specifically looking out for BAME or LGBT applicants, expecially trans people? I know for a fact that many publishers are now putting out calls for writers that fall in those two categories. I may be wrong about this; my info is mainly from SM and MN.

We don’t generally have positive action in this country, except in certain roles and areas of work, which is what you’re describing. What we do have is blind recruitment, to level the playing field, which means that people from traditionally disadvantaged groups aren’t discriminated against on grounds of their protected characteristics. We have a long way to go just to get to the point where everyone with the right qualifications and experience has an equal chance of getting an interview, sadly.

Of course we all want a more diverse workforce, but that starts earlier, by attracting the widest range of people to apply to your sector in the first place.

MeredithGreysScalpel No to picture. I sometimes recruit to a professional position and have seen a photo once on a CV - oh, how we all laughed. How unprofessional. Senior HR manager and if anyone who sometimes recruits behaved like that they wouldn't be involved again.

WanderingMilly I am surprised at the people on here who say things like, they'd bin a CV specifically if it included a photo...that seems unprofessional in itself, to be honest. If you're good enough for interview and they change their minds just because you provided a picture, it doesn't put the recruitment department in a good light Couldn't agree more.

@Polnm

Are you a 6th form student? I one had a new graduate decorate the border of his with pictures of Lego models he had made

Is there any need?

^
This is why in the public sector we have blind recruitment - when I see applications (where we ask for the same specific information from everybody) all personal information is stripped out so I can’t tell what anyone’s protected characteristics are.^

I’m in the public sector. Our HR people monitor this massively, and will run targeted recruitment campaigns, but protected characteristics are removed from applications by the time they reach recruiting managers. I generally know nothing about candidates other than work experience and qualifications (even internal ones sometimes) until I meet them at interview.

Surely they will Google you and find your Linked In/FB/Twitter profile and photo in ten seconds anyway. No need for a photo.

Or a CV really, but people still ask for them so...

@Graciebobcat

Surely they will Google you and find your Linked In/FB/Twitter profile and photo in ten seconds anyway. No need for a photo.

Or a CV really, but people still ask for them so...

The tf has time to google thousands of candidates?

@Lamahaha

It depends on what industry you are working in. Many creative industries appreciate a photo and it's not to admire someone's beauty. It's to bring the CV to life and show the person behind the application.

Yes, this. I used to live in a European country where photos are a requisite part of a CV. But definitely not pretty, sexy photos: photos that give a professional, competent impression.

I once was part of a team recruiting a new team member. There were about 20 applicants and it was really interesting putting a face to the written CVs. It gave an immediate impression of who the person was and helped create the short-list.
Isn't it interesting how each culture has its own, sometimes completely opposite, perspective! I do appreciate the British reasons for rejecting the photo, but I personally prefer CVs with. Not that I'll ever be recruiting again!

Can completely see how you would prefer it. If course it's preferable to the employer shortlisting - it allows you to behave in a biased manner with impunity!

The 'immediate impression of who the person was' is called unconscious bias.

It's to be expected that you would prefer having a photo. It saves you having to wade through the detail. You will do a quick yes/no mentally based on the photo and then skim through the text to justify the decision you made in the few seconds it took to digest the photo. That's what happens with unconscious bias.

What you interpret is just that it makes shortlisting so much easier. But when you ask yourself why it makes it easier, it's because you are bypassing the content of the CV. It's discriminatory and shouldn't be encouraged.

@ancientgran

MeredithGreysScalpel No to picture. I sometimes recruit to a professional position and have seen a photo once on a CV - oh, how we all laughed. How unprofessional. Senior HR manager and if anyone who sometimes recruits behaved like that they wouldn't be involved again.

WanderingMilly I am surprised at the people on here who say things like, they'd bin a CV specifically if it included a photo...that seems unprofessional in itself, to be honest. If you're good enough for interview and they change their minds just because you provided a picture, it doesn't put the recruitment department in a good light Couldn't agree more.

I agree with this too. I think photos are getting less unusual anyway. We’ve offered 2 new jobs this month. One from a CV without a photo and one with. From my point of view it is totally a non issue either way

Also, my first thought when someone has used an ‘I look pretty’ picture isn’t ‘she’s trying to use her looks to get ahead’ but ‘that’s the photo she is happiest with’. Considering how much bloody pressure there is on everyone to look good I definitely wouldn’t just bin someone for that - seems very small-minded to me.

Fail to spell ‘attention to detail’ correctly though and you’re in the bin!

@enjoyingscience

it’s completely the norm in lots of places, I get tonnes of CVs with photos (no glam types, just bog standard passport style), as we get a lot of international applications. Makes it a bit of a pain to say we do ‘blind’ recruitment, but I don’t judge either way.

Everybody judges. They just don't necessarily know they are doing it!

SnakesandKnives what a sane rational attitude.

No photo. In France, the anti-racism charity SOS Racisme completed various studies showing that racial profiling was used thanks to photos. People were adapting their names to make them sound more French but their photos were giving them away. Plus, it’s way wanky to include a photo when not required for eg an ID card.