> Will the candidate be designing novel resumes throughout their time in the role?

Probably once they find out what criteria is used to get promoted…

No promotions, we all get paid the same. Everybody is doing their best, and it's a small company, hierarchies and different salaries add unnecessary overhead and friction.

I think you missed the point…

If you have completely arbitrary hiring restrictions which have absolutely nothing to do with your ability to do the job then what other requirements will be hoisted on you?

I left it simple in the original comment so people could fill in the blank with their own witty ‘job requirements’.

This.

If a job description says “must have custom designed resume”, that’s a hint not to apply. If I submit a standard resume and get rejected because “must have custom designed resume” is an undisclosed bar I was expected to clear, I just dodged a bullet.

I prefer jobs where the hiring focus is on hiring people who are good at the job, and using weird side challenges like “is your resume formatted uniquely enough” is a new variant of “not a culture fit” that I hadn’t heard before.

The is a response to both comments above:

The meritocracy argument is usually brought up by people that are shitty colleagues. Personality is more important than being "good at your job", the latter improves with time and mentoring, the former usually doesn't.

We hire the person first and the skillset second.

Then write that in the job description instead of using the amount of bling in the resume as a proxy.

I know not to apply for jobs looking for “friendly, outgoing people” and it saves everyone a bunch of time.

We optimise for the convenience of potential hires, not the convenience of obvious rejects.

Not understanding trade offs in an important process like hiring isn’t great and would be a signal for where not to work.