This brief article presents results from a survey of just over 5, 000 employers with a response rate of 13%–so just under 700 employers–on whether or not they do or would consider using eportfolios to make hiring decisions.
Here are the results (copied from the article):
Results of the Employer Survey
Use of e-portfolios by HR managers was low for all majors, but the data revealed higher use in the fields of educational services and health care/social assistance. The reasons companies gave for not using e-portfolios were:
- Not familiar with e-portfolios (75 percent)
- Not valuable (14 percent)
- Time constraints (13 percent)
- Cost (12 percent)
Of those companies that did use e-portfolios, 16 percent used them in the initial screening stage, and a small percentage (
The type of information employers believed would be valuable in an e-portfolio included the following:
- Resumes/references (93 percent)
- Written work (39 percent)
- Projects (37 percent)
- Presentations (33 percent)
- Lesson plans (23 percent)
- Case studies (7 percent)
- Artistic performances (6 percent)—————- End of the results————-
- My question after reading this is, have there been other studies conducted on this issue? I haven’t searched beyond the first few Google hits, but this article seems to be the one most often cited so I’m thinking perhaps it is the only one?
- A Rose By Any Other Name…
Also, has anyone looked at whether or not calling it by a different name (i.e. multi-modal resume, or interactive resume, or dynamic employee profile, or just eResume, etc.) in this context of job searching–of appealing to the specific audience of potential employers makes a difference?
- It seems the biggest problem according to the survey results (and common sense) is that the name is off-putting and non-intuitive. Unless the specific employer is familiar with the concept (not the name itself but the actual practice and process that the tool is supposed to encourage) then it’s likely their opinions about its usefulness are going to be skewed by nonrelevant factors.