I always get in trouble when I start a post this way, but I'm a slow learner...
The other day I was talking to a friend who happens to be in marketing. When I first knew him some seventeen years ago, we were in a band together and he was one of the two guys who had a real job (I was not the other one). Back then he was doing market research, I believe, for a computer manufacturer and has spent most of his subsequent career in the tech sector working for some well-known brands as well as some fairly niche ones.
The only reason I bring this up is that he just started a new job. I wasn't too surprised because he always seems to be starting a new job and I said as much. "I don't look for them," he exclaimed, "they find me!" Then he laughed and said, "Well, I have had 7 jobs since 1999."
Talking to my wife about this later, she said, "That's going to look bad on his resume." I told her I didn't think so for a couple reasons. First of all, he keeps getting hired, so his employers apparently don't care. Second of all, I don't think they should care. Why? Because of something else he said: "I think of jobs as projects."
When you are looking for a job, the focus should be on what you accomplished and what resulted. Seeing your accomplishments as projects is a great way to communicate exactly that. Whether you worked somewhere for one year or ten doesn't matter. Almost any job, especially in the worlds of design and marketing, can be described as a single project or a series of projects. The cool thing is that doing so allows you to package your experience in discrete, easily digestible chunks of real-world value and revenue-generating impact.
Now, dish up a heaping platter of these tasty morsels and tell your next employer it's suppertime! Bon appetit!
Image Courtesy of Lady-bug.
The recent story concerning former MIT Dean of Admissions, Marilee Jones, who was asked to resign after 28 years because she had lied about (misrepresented might be more generous, if less accurate) her educational background, got me thinking about credentials, experience, and lying on your resume.
While it's not clear exactly how many people lie on their resumes --I found numbers ranging from 25% to around 50% to over 70% -- the basic assumption of most recruiters is that resumes are "subjective" rather than "objective" representations of a candidate's work experience. The general sentiment is, "Nobody's perfect - except on their resume."
The tenuous connection between the resume and reality was made eminently clear in the case of Miss Jones. Having started out as an administrative assistant in the admissions department at MIT, a position which, and here's the Hardy-esque irony, did not require a college degree, she steadily rose through the ranks to become dean. Her actual job performance qualified her for the latter post, not her credentials. The veracity of her resume had no bearing whatsoever on her ability to rise to the top of her profession.
Aside from raising the question of why she subsequently had to resign (Barbara Ehrenreich, among others, believes it's because higher education and the veneer of professionalism bestowed by degrees is a farce), this situation also raises the question: Why do hiring managers rely on resumes?
click to continue...
<
Several years ago, I was joking around with a friend of mine about things to put on my resume and he suggested: "1993-95 - Leader of Robot Army."
Well, the joke's on us now. Reading the New England Tech Wire e-newsletter today, I came across this headline: "iRobot Names Sandra Lawrence President of Home Robots Division."
Just imagine: Ms. Lawrence was chief marketing officer at Polaroid, twice named to Ad Age's "Top Marketers" List, and is now the commander-in-chief of an entire robot division!
Is there anything that a good marketer can't do?
While following a link about pencils made from human ash, or, "cremains", I stumbled across this post by Ben Garfinkel, Creative Director at Vancouver's Industrial Brand Creative. [Warning: Their Flash site is cool but slightly disturbing.] In said post, he lays out what he looks for in a portfolio, what impresses him, and what turns him off.
Since a lot of his advice is either common sense - spell his name correctly, tailor your content, etc. - or not actionable - "Fussy, complicated or overly precious portfolios are annoying" - I came away with two questions. The first one was, "Why did he write this?"
I assume that anyone who is sending out unsolicited samples and seriously hoping for a positive response would already be careful about spelling and the like. I would also assume that the applicant would be keen on demonstrating that they not only understand what the firm's about but have thought through why the firm would be interested in them in the first place.
Reflecting on this first question led me to the conclusion that Mr. Garfinkel must have written his piece because, in actual fact, he receives a lot of unsolicited portfolios that are carelessly prepared and demonstrate little more than the applicant's ignorance, or, to put it more gently, naivete. Which led me to my next question: "Why don't people do the right thing, even when it is just common sense?"
I do not yet have a satisfactory answer to that question.
A fellow who calls himself "Rands," and who works as an "engineering manager of teams that design phenomenal software" wrote an insightful post on what he looks at when reviewing a resume.
I encourage you to read the post in its entirety. It will provide you with a very detailed and frank description of those elements of a resume, in terms of both content and style, that matter to this particular hiring manager. Ideally, his practical suggestions will help you craft, or re-craft, your resume so that it will do what it's supposed to do: get the attention of people who are empowered to hire you and influence them to, at the very least, initiate a conversation with you.
In a nutshell, Rands, decides whether or not to talk to a particular candidate within about 30 seconds and he's basically looking for two things:
Clarity and honesty - Provide a meaningful "glimpse" into the things you've done and can do while avoiding vagueries such as, "Established track record for delivering measurable results under tight schedules." If you feel strangely compelled to include statements like that, be absolutely prepared to give a concise and concrete example when asked. In other words, don't put anything on your resume that you're not prepared to talk about at length.
Differentiation - Rands says that your resume should offer some "hook" that begs further exploration. As he puts it, "The hook will leave me with a question. Maybe it's something from your other interests section? How about an objective so outlandish that I can't help but set up a phone screen? I'm not suggesting that you make anything up, I'm asking you to market yourself in a way that I'm going to remember."
Like I said, this post contains a lot of very practical suggestions. Do yourself a favor and read it!
On a side note: I love how one thing leads to another on the web. Checking out Mike Wagner's blog (Mike has a lot of great ideas about branding and is a contributor to Marketing Profs), he recommended reading David Koopman's blog (David is a marketer down in Melbourne, Australia). I clicked over to David's blog and found this post, which was itself a comment on Rands post, which I otherwise may never have discovered. Thanks Mike, David, and Rands. And thank you, oh wonderful World Wide Web!
