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

It gave an immediate impression of who the person was and helped create the short-list.

This is not a good thing!!

What people basically look like is not under their control, it doesn’t tell you how competent they are or how hard working they are. Of course you’ll see what they look like once you interview them, but a CV should be relevant to the initial selection process, and what someone looks like (except in a few very specific fields) is absolutely not relevant to this.

@Lamahaha

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

...and anyway, when they invite you in for an interview they will see your sex, age, race at at that stage, so I no recruitment process is completely blind. Unless they are not invited for interviews and truly recruited blind, without ever meeting them -- but who does that?

Because once you are interviewed there are metrics collected in most companies on sex, sexual orientation, disability etc so discrimination is easier to see at interview stage. Plus to have a whole panel and there is the opportunity at interview to overcome the bigotry of the paper stage. You are more likely to be biased against a stereotype but once you have met an individual it's less likely to influence the outcome. So actually it makes a massive difference.

I work in recruitment and would advise against the photo. Template is fine and quite common.
Good luck!

@Evilwasps

MMN I can see where you're coming from regarding discrimination, however he is hardly responsible for that happening, if a recruiter is going to discriminate they'll do so anyway at interview stage if not before. It's more often than not easy to tell a person's race, nationality, sex and approximate age from the info on the C.V. That said, I think the photo thing is ridiculous. However a well formatted C.V. clearly helps.

Of course he's partly responsible - if people don't put their photos, others aren't discriminated against as a result.

You also shouldn't put date of birth on CV. Yes things can be assumed by where you studied and worked and when but the aim is to minimise that.

But he is contributing to the problem by adding a photo.

@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.

They encourage applications from minorities. Because then more minorities are hired from the pool of all applicants. They still appoint the best candidate to individual roles. But if none apply, it's hard to have a balanced workforce.

@GammyLeg

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.

You googled the ones you shortlisted. Not every applicant.

So actually not having photos on CV's is better. Because you decide to shortlist and then you google.

That exactly proves the point.

I've consistently been told no photo recently for pretty much all the reasons everyone else has said. As such, my new one doesn't have one.

I always look people up on LinkedIn though... that would be the place for a relevant and relatable photo if at all.

Like everyone else I don’t think it’s appropriated to have a photo but I’m always surprised at the number of people who work in recruitment who have such rigid and fixed ‘rules’ about things. TBH being that fixed on CVs being exactly how they want seems unfair.

I google shortlisted applicants too which is still going to apply an unconscious bias but hopefully less so than the original CV photo.

Absolutely no photo. Many companies are very sensitive to unconscious bias when recruiting and including a photo (or your gender/dob/etc) will show that you are unaware of these issues.

Good luck with the interview. I really hope its trapeze artist! Definitely worth including a photo.

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.

But that's not what happened. It was for a job where a certain personality type was required, and a photo can tell you a lot. There were about 18 women and two men. We chose together three women for the shortlist, and then I and two colleagues and our boss sat down together and looked at their qualifications in a professional way. Most of all we were looking for experience in a particular sector. We interviewed them all, and then discussed again, once more looking for personality factors as well as experience (all had the same qualification). The vote wasn't unanimous, but the boss had the last word.

The applicants we discarded at the first run-through were all ones who had absolutely NO experience for the job required (it was a medicine-based kind of job).

The photo helped us to know: is this a person I can imagine working with? The interview was the next step. If there was a bias, it was necessary for the job; the person would have to fit into the team, and qualifications on paper alone just wouldn't work. A person can be supremely educated, have worked years in all the right places, and still might be a horrible person not fit in. Yes, we had to like them. Sounds awful, but it is realistic. But like them not because they were pretty or young or white -- there had to be rapport. You can get that from a photo.
But the main thing was previous experience in the field.

@RoseGoldEagle

It gave an immediate impression of who the person was and helped create the short-list.

This is not a good thing!!

What people basically look like is not under their control, it doesn’t tell you how competent they are or how hard working they are. Of course you’ll see what they look like once you interview them, but a CV should be relevant to the initial selection process, and what someone looks like (except in a few very specific fields) is absolutely not relevant to this.

See my post above. "who the person is" is not the main criteria; for that job, it was secondary to their experience in a particular field. But anyway: my opinion is irrelevant; as it is not the norm in the UK. Just be aware that in some European countries the opposite is the case.

Dont have the job, just the interview. In the photo i have a patch of piddle on my top, a tripple chin and unkempt hair. Definately not a look at me aren't i sexy photo.

Jesus H Christ. Still, come back and let us know if you do get the job. 😉

I’ve been told that it’s the norm to include a photo in the field I want to go into (abroad). Which is worrying because I have a face like a well-skelped arse.

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.

How naive. In these industries it's all about whether your face fits and whether you uphold the image of their brand.

@Lamahaha

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.

I'm not in Germany.... Also I said very very hard pressed... not that it was impossible.

It's very usual to do this in some other countries but it's not caught on here (yet). My American friend insists it's because we have such bad teeth, as a nation. (Though they also admit that's a myth they were sold, along with "not rinsing dishes after washing them gives you a tummy upset"....)

It wouldn't surprise me if it becomes the usual practice before too long, given the large numbers of applicants for so many jobs. Personally I'm in favour of application forms, shortlisting from CVs is really hard work if they haven't been targeted to the particular vacancy.

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

Putting your photo on a CV is not the done thing in the UK, so if you do include one, it shows you haven't done your research properly about what a UK CV should look like. That's the issue.

One issue I do have, though, is that it's partly to stop discrimination - and yet lots of people now have photos on LinkedIn. Now that a fair amount of jobs are advertised and you actually have to apply through LinkedIn, surely that's defeating the purpose somewhat? A lot of the internet tends to "Speak American" or act like there's a universal way of doing things, and I think the putting-your-photo-on-LinkedIn trend is causing real problems and going against what's supposed to be an anti-discrimination thing. LinkedIn is also a problem because you can't tailor your CV to the job, you just have one LinkedIn page no matter what you're applying for.

I do graduate recruitment and we used to ask for a passport photo for those who were selected for the recruitment day as it was useful to ensure that we were all talking about the right person in the wash up afterwards. (The 10 we were looking at usually included at least 2 Jameses and 2 Olivias.)

But we’ve stopped asking now due to it being such a barrel of worms.

Just to add, I also prefer application forms as a candidate as well, but that could just be because, as a colleague said to me in a previous job, I "really like putting things in boxes". (He was an engineer. His favourite teaching tool was a box of Lego.)

Speaking as someone who used to get lots of applications but rarely CVs (we specifically said "NO CV" in our job packs, but some people thought they'd ignore that), I can join the others who say "NO photo".

It added nothing to my understanding of that person's skills, knowledge and experience and in quite a few cases put me right off what was probably in real life a very nice person.

The photo helped us to know: is this a person I can imagine working with? The interview was the next step. If there was a bias, it was necessary for the job; the person would have to fit into the team, and qualifications on paper alone just wouldn't work. A person can be supremely educated, have worked years in all the right places, and still might be a horrible person not fit in. Yes, we had to like them. Sounds awful, but it is realistic. But like them not because they were pretty or young or white -- there had to be rapport. You can get that from a photo.

So you looked at the photos and decided whether you could imagine working with them? I know you said that you also filtered out on relevant experience but how on earth can you tell whether you would have a rapport with someone from a photo?

Great - overweight and less attractive people get filtered out because of unconscious bias. People who take a bad photo come across badly. No one would ever imagine they could have a rapport with me from my photo but they would and do in real life.

Surely you could shortlist people based on their qualifications and then at interview you can see whether you have a rapport with people and whether they would fit into the team? I find it very unfair of recruiters to look at a photo and say can't imagine working with them - bin.

Sophiafour

I think it's actually the opposite. Not that photos on CVs have not caught on yet, but that the UK is actively moving away from including demographic characteristics irrelevant to the job on applications, in order to counter unconscious bias.

Certainly, the last couple of jobs I applied for asked for a blind application with no mention of university names or dates attended: they would check certificates if I was offered the job but not in the decision to sift or offer. That wasn't the case twenty years ago.

Interesting. I would NEVER have put a photo on mine but a senior colleague advised me to (not in the UK) I did but they already knew me because I had worked for them before and had decided whether I was getting the job so it made zero difference 😂 I was really surprised he specifically suggested it though.

When I've seen the photo of some of my colleagues on LinkedIn I've had to try really hard not to laugh out loud. Airbrushed within an inch of their life. Pouting like a fish. Gazing up at the camera with a low cut top. Made to look at least 3 stone lighter. Any interviewer who chooses them for their looks will be deeply disappointed when they turn up!

No photo is required. Most companies are very keen not to show any bias in their recruitment processes, so won't be interested in what you look like.