The term "best practices" is often used (perhaps too often) in business, but what about "worst practices" (or at least bad practices, where "bad" means less than illegal but more than a simple typo in a job description)? This page details some of what I consider to be bad practices in hiring, based on what I've seen when seeking a new position. These are common practices, but for the reasons shown below they are not practices you should emulate. As I run across more, I may add to this page.

Practice: Requiring that a resume be attached to email in Word format.
Why It Is Bad:

• Not everyone owns Word and can create a Word document that will display correctly in your version of Word.
• Not all versions of Word are compatible with each other. If an applicant has a newer version of Word than you, it's possible you won't be able to open it.
• Word documents can carry viruses. Even if you have virus protection, the applicant may not. Is that a fair reason to reject them for consideration for the position(s) you have open? If not, can you be sure you won't feel unfairly prejudiced against the applicant if your virus software warns you of a virus in their resume?

Alternatives:

• PDF format -- better because it can be generated for free (such as by using the free OpenOffice.org suite of applications), and the viewer is available for free for a wide range of computing platforms. This format will allow the applicant to present his/her resume with all of the intended formatting.
• TXT format -- not as good as PDF because it is unformatted, but it can be created for free, and does not carry viruses.
• HTML format -- not as good as PDF because formatting may change from one browser to the next, but it is free to create. Of course, enabling your browser's security options before viewing such attachments would be sensible, to say the least.

Practice: For someone who designs or develops Web sites, requiring URLs and/or a portfolio of prior sites as an example of the applicant's work.
Why It Is Bad:
This might work fine for print industries where pages don't mysteriously change, but Web sites are not stable. Any given site in the applicant's "portfolio" could have been shut down, significantly altered, or left in a "broken" state after the applicant left the organization for which the site was created.

Also, many sites are team projects, so the applicant may not be able to take credit for the entire site, nor provide specific visible details of his/her involvement.

Plus, someone who has worked primarily on intranets cannot possibly let you see his/her work because it's only available on a private network to which you and the applicant do not have access.

Alternative:
Provide a simple but illustrative and relevant "exercise" for the applicant. For example, provide some unformatted content (not real content you would actually use, but material that is similar to what you would normally deal with), and have the applicant develop a site using that material. (It must be obvious to the applicant that they're not just doing work for free, which is why it's wise to ensure the sample content is clearly not real content.)

Practice: Using "incumbent" to refer to the person who will be newly hired into the listed position, as in: "The incumbent will be responsible for..."
Why It Is Bad:
The word "incumbent" refers to a person already in a position. Improper word choice demonstrates sloppiness and/or ignorance, which is presumably not what you want to convey.

Alternatives:
Use "successful candidate" instead.