Over the past year I’ve become deeply involved in the sustainability movement, a return to my roots, really. And with each passing day the gap between my “work” and my passion has grown wider.

This is one of the major reasons I’ve been finding it so difficult to write here. Every time I started a post about traditional recruiting/talent management dilemmas I ended up trying to respond from a traditional corporate capitalist perspective, and every time the content rang false. A traditional corporate capitalist I am not. But I have been acting like one for a number of reasons, bifurcating my professional and personal identities to avoid the inescapable clash of cultures and philosophies. In retrospect none of those reasons seem compelling, but they may have been necessary for me to get here.

And here is where I stand now, firmly embracing my personal convictions as they relate to business in general and “talent management” in particular. The time for a new approach is come. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go water my garden.

And what, by the way, is so objective about a resume? The dates of employment? The duties and responsibilities? How does any of this prove one’s employability? You seem to think that other “objective” means of determining ability—such as GPA requirements—are bunk; what is it about resumes that’s somehow different or better than a GPA requirement? I would think a GPA is a FAR better indicator of someone’s ability to maintain a certain level of performance.

Here’s the real deal: resumes are the TRADITIONAL way we determine a candidate’s worth. Whether or not they’re an EFFECTIVE determinant is an open question. Seriously. How many candidates with sparkling resumes have you referred to your HMs that turn out to be total schmucks?

I think Seth is on to something. There are ginormously superior ways to identify great candidates.