So what you’re saying is that when a director level position was open, you spent 10 seconds on a resume and were concerned mostly about their name, the prior company name and what school they attended?
I’m saying I could scan a vitae in 10 seconds and figure out if they met our qualifications. That included education and previous and current jobs.
That’s the first pass, which will screen out a _lot_ of applicants.
Problem today is with digital distribution and resume mills, a whole lotta applicants just send their resume to darned near anyone they can imagine, leaving managers with a huge pile of mostly-inappropriate resumes. People will apply for a director-level position when their name, prior company name, and school name don’t add up to a likely viable candidate. Many companies have learned it’s better to discard a winning applicant than to hire a losing one. Once they’ve narrowed the pile down to a manageable number (remember, minutes add up fast), _then_ they’ll start digging into whether they’ve actually got a realistic fit for that director level position.
BTW: if you’re really talking director (or other high-) level positions, far more likely candidates will be chosen by non-resume connections. My current position came from knowing the right person at the right time, not a resume.
Oh, and just to rankle you more: other studies show that most in-person interviews are decided in the first 2 seconds. Yes, just 2 seconds - 1/3rd the time they spent scanning the resume.