Last week, I wrote about the resume mistakes that can give your job application a short trip to the recycle bin. That was mostly a list of DO NOT DO THIS, and I had plenty of leftovers in the DO THIS category. This week, as promised, I share the opinions of professional HR staff and tech recruiters about what they want to see — and too often do not.
John Nicholson now runs Resumes That Jump and previously worked at Brainbench, an IT certification company. He's found that the three critical things likely to be left off résumés are:
Most people spend their entire résumé talking about everyday job duties, says Nicholson, such as "analyzed requirements" or "fixed bugs." They fail to stand out because plenty of other résumés are full of those same duties. Yes, Nicholson says, cover your primary responsibilities, but do it concisely. "Focus instead on unique achievements — things you initiated, architected, built, or were selected for that had a lasting impact on the company," he advises.
One recruiter backed this up with a bit more passion, by saying she dumps applications listing duties or tasks in lieu of real accomplishments. "So you just showed up to work for the last five years and only did exactly what you were told? There are another 100 people in line behind you, some of whom could actually tell me how they could be useful," she writes.
The best way is to highlight achievements with numbers. It's especially helpful to use numbers that have business meaning. An HR person doesn't need to be a techie to understand "saved company $2 million" or "reduced hours by 70%." Quantify your duties, too, such as number of people managed or number of projects led. Numbers do three great things, says Nicholson. They act as "slow down signs" to readers, they add credibility and uniqueness, and they show you understand and value business results. "Quantification is more challenging for programmers than, say, salespeople, but it's very do-able," he say. "I almost never see an IT résumé with enough numbers."
A related mistake is describing your organization rather than what you did personally. One recruiter discards résumés that tell her all about the company where you you worked and what they produced, instead of describing what you did to contribute. "I see this more on résumés with little experience in an attempt to make the resume bigger," she says. "When a résumé lists what the company does, what the application does and what the group was responsible for, one has to ask the question, 'What the heck did you do?'"
Do include an introduction in your résumé. Instead of jumping straight from name and contact information to chronological work experience, start instead with a title or header ("Senior Java Developer"), a compelling summary paragraph, and scan-able list of skills or core competencies, Nicholson says. Done well, the introduction gives readers context and makes them want to read more.
Don't make that list of buzzwords generic. Marsh Sutherland, president of Walden Recruiting, says technologies listed should include a self-rating of Beginner, Intermediate, and Expert and years of experience. Certainly, "5 years of J2EE" is more appealing than "J2EE," no? It's also helpful to include the year you last used the technology, says Sutherland.
Be sure to reconcile technologies you list in the summary to specific positions on your résumé. Each job description should include a "Technical environment included" section as the last bullet, listing all the technologies you worked with in that role, says Sutherland. If you really want to stand out, he says, include sample code; naturally, it should be well-documented with instructions and it should actually work. (I have to assume that this applies only when the submission process makes it possible to provide sample code; most of those annoying online application systems — which have you upload your résumé and then make you re-enter everything again — don't make it easy to upload any extras.)
We already know that HR pros and recruiters really love to see technology certifications, especially from the vendor of the technologies. If you have a choice (which I think generally means, "an existing employer who'll pay for it," right?) go for certification from the vendor. "Brainbench certification is nice and better than no certification, but not as good as a certification from the technology vendor themselves," advises Sutherland.
One unique situation that the HR people barely touched on — somewhat surprisingly, to me — is the expertise a developer gains on her own. I've long been a proponent of teaching yourself new, marketable skills by getting involved in an open source community. In addition to helping to improve the world in some way, you can gain skills worth marketing elsewhere. Want to learn a new language, add a new platform to your arsenal, take on a new kind of responsibility? Pick an open source project, and dive right in. I'm sure this is happening far more often than most recruiters realize (especially if you include your FOSS experience as a job, which I've seen often on LinkedIn). Yet the only specific advice I was given in this regard is "Separate your professional experience from your personal/academic experience." And even then, it was in a training and back-up-assertions context; the HR pro wrote, "Just because you took a single .Net class, you're still considered a Mainframe developer if that's what your experience is in." I dare say I could research another entire blog post on "how to present your open source experience in a résumé," especially as more developers successfully use the FOSS-gained skills in open source jobs.
You should follow me on Twitter.
As someone who has
As someone who has interviewed many programmers and immediately tossed exponentially more resume's, the worst thing someone can do is say they're an expert at something. All that does is invite a whole slew of questions you are incapable of answering.
Having sat on both sides of the table in that situation...
...I agree completely. It almost never turns out well. And the few times that it does, inevitably the wheels come off in some spectacular, unforeseen fashion later down the line. As an applicant, I've taken to using that line in an interview cycle that I'm just about ready to walk away from for other reasons, and use the reaction from "I'm an expert in...." to judge whether that decision is correct. The folks that hang uncritically on your every word from then on are either a) complete idiots relying on buzzwords to get people who really know what they're doing, and/or b) trying to resurrect a project that's already hit the hypersonic train wreck phase, where anybody with any sense in the same time zone has already run as far away as they can get. In neither case do you want to be the one rearranging the deck chairs when Titanic goes down.
Be careful when you say expert
Yeah, I agree with your comment. The candidate has to be very sure that he/she has considerable expertise in a field before he/she proclaims as an expert. While the word expert makes you sound like one for the HR managers, a good programmer can screw you with questions.
While I agree with your comment about...
...the value of teaching yourself new skills, in principle, hiring managers are not going to be easily impressed with such statements unless you can quantifiably prove that your contributions had a material impact on the project _and_ the project has proven itself in commercial applications.
Otherwise, it's just textbook knowledge.
For example, I have tutored people in Java and even wrote two Android applications for Google's phone in Java. Yet no one would consider me as being knowledgeable in Java since I've never used it in a real world setting.
Your point had more validity 10 years ago when, say, you could read a book on Windows application development and use it to get a job when you've done nothing but OS/2 development professionally. (I know someone who successfully did this in the mid-90's.) But these days employers are a lot pickier than they once were due to the overall supply of quality talent available.
You mean....
Oversupply of underpaid, yet "qualified" talent, right ? ( careful, don't answer that, it's a rhetorical comment ).
Having worked "both sides of the fence" as an in-house engineer for a consulting firm that places consultants, and as a "Perm" employee over the last 22 years in the industry. I can safely say that while you have some valid points, it shows again the skew in mentality that disconnects HR and hiring managers from the supposedly "quality candidates" they say they want. Sure, everyone wants quality candidates. But the old adage "you get what you pay for" hasn't been totally divorced from the equation of hiring talent.
To anyone who's a candidate and reading these comments, here's a quick deciphering of what the REAL "DO's" are.
Do..
State specifically what you did with the technology buzzword that the HR/Recruiter person will be scanning for, but don't forget to phrase yourself to make the buzzword stand out. Many HR departments and recruiters use specialized software that SPECIFICALLY scan documents ( and you wondered why some companies will only accept resumes in WORD format ? ) and build ranking on buzzwords.
State specifically any cost saving, capital
earnings ( in time, manpower, or actual dollars and cents ) your efforts saved the company.
State any new intellectual property or new products you had a hand in creating from nothingness.
Don't...
...Just put in buzzwords.
...Put in where you're thinking of taking your career. Quite frankly, most recruiters will not care, and possibly even exclude you, if your idea of where you want to take your career doesn't mesh with where the employer's idea's or plans are for someone taking the position they're trying to fill.
Lastly, remember the "dirty little secret" behind most recruiters. Your resume isn't for QUALIFYING you for the position, it's for DISQUALIFYING you. While you may think this is backwards, sadly, it's actually the case. With the "overall supply of quality talent available", to quote Larry, how do you separate the "wheat from the chaff" ? Disqualification.
Hopefully that sets the story straight.
Oh, and as for "teaching yourself something". Frankly, I wouldn't hire someone who doesn't regularly teach themselves new or even DIVERGENT aspects of the particular arena they're used to working within. Why not ? Because it's people who don't push their boundaries, and learn new technologies ( even if they're not going to or can't use them in their specific work activities ) that in my experience make for more issue prone work product. I WANT an employee who can come and share some experience they've learned from while teaching themselves something new. Even if I can't use it today, or next year. That kind of person is more self-motivated, and apt to be a strong problem solver.
I have seen both sides of
I have seen both sides of the approach to work/not work. Smart people hire smarter folks. They know how to work with smarter folks. Not so smart people look for folks who are not as smart as they are so that they can 'control' them. When you look at a crappy organization, you will find that somewhere in the hierarchy there is the culprit who created the crappy organization.
If you are smart and get filtered because of an organization's hiring practice, then you really don't belong to that organization. Move on...
Your response obviously shows that you look for smarter talents. Congrats!
Excellent tips
this post was very helpfull and I'm going to apply most of your suggestions to my own resume. Thank you very much :)
Awesome Advice
wonderful advice you have here, I've got to change my resume now for sure:)
To what extent does this still hold true in web 2.0 world
My 2 cents....
Totally agree with most of the points. But in this digital web 2.0 world, most of the resumes are scanned and filtered by search/scanning engines of job websites like monster,dice and careerbuilder.
Having keywords like "Analyzed", "Initiated, "Architected", "Built" or Technical skills in the resume will make sure that your resume will be on TOP of the stack list when the employer search for the resume using keywords.
First an applicant has to cross this so callled web-gateway (i.e monster and dice) even before his/her resume lands in HR department.
Those aren't the keywords they're looking for
They don't look for "architected." They look for "J2ME" or "Ajax" or maybe "scrum."
I know this from personal (and annoying) experience. My own online resume mentions the content management tools I'm familiar with. It's not a big selling point, and it's stuffed at the very end of the resume along with other "familiar with..." terms. However, on at least a half dozen occasions I have gotten e-mail messages and even a phone call from recruiters who ask if I'm interested in a Vignette programming contract. There's no way that anyone who actually read my resume would see me as a programmer, anymore, much less one who programs to that CMS environment. But it's all based on keywords. (I'm just annoyed that they don't actually look at the resume before they pick up the phone.)
This might be worth reading
This might be worth reading and is related to the last paragraph about FOSS on your résumé:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/FreeSoftwareOnResumes:Writing
To make your point stand
To make your point stand out, you got to individualized your application. You don't want it to look generic. Now how to write a resume? Just keep it clean and professional. No grammar errors, no I and me statement, and use specific figures when you can. Keep your qualification relevant to the position you're applying to.
Your last paragraph: independent learning
I have been chided and derided for daring to mention that I did learning on my own. I was called dis-loyal to my company, and totally worthless. This from both HR people and IT people. So screw your last paragraph!!
Post new comment