In this e-age with social networking and video conferencing it brings about a good question - have these new trends rendered resumes old school and dead? I mean think about it, Facebook and Twitter have such vast networks of interconnected people to connect with in a moments notice, so why go through dozens if not hundreds of resumes to find a good fit candidate when it's easier to get a feel for a person via their Facebook profile or Twitter page? On top of that recruiters and hiring managers know that candidates generally come with personal references from people they know and/or have worked with before. Can a resume alone do that?

Let's face it social is powerful and from the looks of it, here to stay. While the verdict is still out on the value of resumes, my guess is that they will still be around but not used in the way they once were. The role of the resume from here on out will likely be a supportive role versus the star of the show. As social continues to outpace any other source for staffing and recruiting, more and more hiring decisions will be made in social circles with resumes simply providing support for hiring decisions already decided. In short, resumes will simply confirm hiring decisions. The exception to this rule is if/when the resume shows something vastly different than from the perspective of the hiring decision makers i.e. falsely claiming to have credentiasl and education, etc. So as long as there are no big issues with a persons resume, the gut feeling of the hiring manager and/or recruiter will prevail. That's one persons opinion anyway. Even if the resume isn't dead (yet), one thing is sure, resumes aren't going to continue as the front runner for hiring decisions over the next five years. Who needs a stale piece of paper when you have a virtual interview profile via a YouTube video and realtime job leads via any number of social networks?

Social this, social that and all things social represent the new buzz word trends. The big question is whether or not social networking is living up to its promises? Promises - what promises? Well for advertisers, that means extending product and service reach. For job search [recruiters and job hunters] that means making new social connections that allow recruiters to reach new pools of candidates and for job seekers the obvious - make the necessary connections to get a new job. Well it's been over a year - more like two and what has social networking delivered on? Well the jury is still out but it's not looking good for social networking.

Why is social networking having such a challenge delivering anything meaningful other than blips and sound bites that most aren't even listening to? Well for starters, according to path, the new social networking site, it really just isn't possible to manage the hundreds and thousands of relationships that Twitter and Facebook users are obsessed with establishing. Can you really keep up with one of 150,000 followers that you interact with once if that? Perhaps, you can now begin to see why the tens of thousands of followers and fans aren't delivering. Quite simply, they aren't listening -- they have tuned you out -- because they don't know you or even care. This of course is bad news for job hunters and especially for advertisers. Sounds, like the problem here is the classic "bigger is better" myth. If you're looking for job do you really need to be connected to 5,000 recruiters that aren't listening or 25 recruiters that know you, are listening and going to bat for you?

While the jury is still out and social networking still has a chance of providing some meaningful value, it looks like social networking is having problems living up to promises. With that being said, i don't know how optimistic i would be on expecting much from social networking. You could on the other hand, give Path a spin and see what happens. After all, managing small groups is easier and more realistic anyway.