Disappointed there are still hiring teams who won’t even talk to a candidate who doesn’t have an up-to-date portfolio.
Several excellent designers I know were unexpectedly laid off recently. They don’t have portfolios ready.
These teams will miss the chance to hire them.
Several excellent designers I know were unexpectedly laid off recently. They don’t have portfolios ready.
These teams will miss the chance to hire them.
Requiring a portfolio for an interview is a great way to push highly-qualified candidates away.
These folks can show their work, they just don’t have it packaged in a way to supply it when applying.
It’s a *huge* hiring mistake to refuse to talk with them.
These folks can show their work, they just don’t have it packaged in a way to supply it when applying.
It’s a *huge* hiring mistake to refuse to talk with them.
I believe there's still a use for a résumé and a portfolio.
I think teams need to rethink how they look at them.
Especially in this market, where highly-qualified candidates can be difficult to pinpoint. It's costly to misjudge a candidate.
I think teams need to rethink how they look at them.
Especially in this market, where highly-qualified candidates can be difficult to pinpoint. It's costly to misjudge a candidate.
It's a common myth that "people should always have work ready" in their portfolio.
There are lots of reasons why this can't practically be done. I document several in the article I cited above, but let's go through a quick summary.
There are lots of reasons why this can't practically be done. I document several in the article I cited above, but let's go through a quick summary.
NDAs are the most obvious. Many orgs (not just military and top-secret intelligence work) make all work done for that orgs covered under NDA. An employee can't show what they've worked on without permission from the company.
There are hiring managers who believe it's ok for someone to disclose NDA'd work in an interview and will pressure the candidate to do so.
Keep in mind, you're asking them to break a promise they made in a contract. That's unethical behavior.
Keep in mind, you're asking them to break a promise they made in a contract. That's unethical behavior.
Would you want them to break promises they made to you?
Please don't ask candidates to break promises they made to others because you believe it serves your purposes.
(And candidates should think twice about any hiring organization where the manager feels it's ok to do this.)
Please don't ask candidates to break promises they made to others because you believe it serves your purposes.
(And candidates should think twice about any hiring organization where the manager feels it's ok to do this.)
There are other good reasons why people can't keep their portfolio up to date, like David's.
While it's a smart idea if you have the time and resources, it's actually a very privileged attitude to assume someone will always have that. There are things that happen in life that make ensuring your best work is in a portfolio.
Eliminating those candidates is costly.
Eliminating those candidates is costly.
I do wonder if the hiring managers who insist on having up-to-date portfolios also make sure their direct reports get time and encouragement to keep their own portfolios up to date?
(We do that at Center Centre – UIE, but I don't think it's common practice elsewhere.)
(We do that at Center Centre – UIE, but I don't think it's common practice elsewhere.)
Someone who is happy in their current job, busily focused on delivering great work may not have built up a habit to stop that work and focus on their portfolio.
Maybe we should be suspicious of anyone who finds themselves suddenly out of work and has an up-to-date portfolio?
Maybe we should be suspicious of anyone who finds themselves suddenly out of work and has an up-to-date portfolio?
I'm betting those same hiring managers who demand up-to-date portfolios would be upset to hear their directs are constantly thinking about their next job, and slowing down project work to ensure their portfolio is up-to-date.
Which brings me to passive candidates. These are folks who are actually quite happy with their current gig and not looking.
It's very likely that they'll be ideal candidates for your position. They've done comparable work before and have great experience.
It's very likely that they'll be ideal candidates for your position. They've done comparable work before and have great experience.
Your position might be very attractive to them. It might be the next step in their career they've been waiting for.
But they aren't actively looking and haven't taken the time to update their portfolio. (Some never had a portfolio, because they were hired by reputation alone.)
But they aren't actively looking and haven't taken the time to update their portfolio. (Some never had a portfolio, because they were hired by reputation alone.)
Requiring these candidates to submit a portfolio to apply for your position will likely cause them to turn away and continue in the job they're quite happy with.
You'll never even know they were interested.
You'll never even know they were interested.
While we're talking about it, there's a lot of myths about how to evaluate portfolios.
Like, somehow, they show a hiring manager how the candidate "thinks."
Like, somehow, they show a hiring manager how the candidate "thinks."
I'm guessing that hiring managers who believe this have never thought about their most meaningful relationships.
Someone can be married to their best friend for years and still be surprised every day about how that person "thinks."
I don't think a portfolio would help there.
Someone can be married to their best friend for years and still be surprised every day about how that person "thinks."
I don't think a portfolio would help there.
A portfolio will never tell anyone how the candidate thinks. If you believe you're learning that you're making likely-faulty inferences from poorly-constructed observations.
This is just poor research practice and any seasoned UX practitioner should already know this.
This is just poor research practice and any seasoned UX practitioner should already know this.
Requiring portfolios up front is just a bad hiring practice.
It's costly because we can't afford to push great candidates while we spend time on people we're misguidedly thinking are good.
It's costly because we can't afford to push great candidates while we spend time on people we're misguidedly thinking are good.
Portfolios over-index on visual work.
They don't show process or other non-visual work well.
They don't show work that's done as a team or a leader.
They don't show work that can't be shown due to NDAs.
And they aren't how we should make hiring decisions.
They don't show process or other non-visual work well.
They don't show work that's done as a team or a leader.
They don't show work that can't be shown due to NDAs.
And they aren't how we should make hiring decisions.
Another way to think about it:
Portfolios are basically personal design debt. Any undocumented projects are a heavy weight on a designer.
Why are you penalizing people in heavy portfolio debt?
What makes you think people with no portfolio debt are actually your best candidates?
Portfolios are basically personal design debt. Any undocumented projects are a heavy weight on a designer.
Why are you penalizing people in heavy portfolio debt?
What makes you think people with no portfolio debt are actually your best candidates?
I don’t have a soundcloud, but we did just launch our new job board for passionate UX professionals that seek opportunities with design teams delivering great user experiences.
Check it out here: UXCareers.UIE.com
Check it out here: UXCareers.UIE.com
Maybe we should add an indication to highlight those open UX positions that don’t require portfolios to apply?
Why didn’t I think of this before?
Why didn’t I think of this before?
