I thought this post about Stryker was unusually candid, which isn’t such a bad thing.
I’m wondering how frequently recruiters look at a company name on a resume and consider that candidate “ruined,” to use the word that the blogger used. Of course, some companies (like Enron) have such negative connotations that candidates have taken to leaving their past-employers’ names off of their resumes.
And I’ve heard or overheard recruiters say similar things about colleges, such as one recruiter who said something to the effect of graduates of elite colleges being more spoiled, and how they preferred a candidate who worked during college or paid part of their way.
But this Stryker post — it felt different. I’m curious what others think.