“Skeptical Resume Reader Tells How He Really Thinks”, by Douglas Richardson reinforces what I have been told since I started writing resumes. With a lot of resumes to read, recruiters do not have the time to carefully read and look over each individual resume. Therefore not only do you need to made sure that everything has, as Richardson states, “a clear-cut sense of direction” but that you do simple things like spell everything correctly.
I really liked how both Richardson and Rands discussed how they conduct their “scan”. By being able to understand the mindset of a recruiter or HR person will allow me to better understand my audience and better cater to their needs. While they each conducted their scan differently, it demonstrates how your resume not only needs to be functional as a whole, but it also needs to be able to viewed out of order or with out all of the sections.
The articles and the comments made on then also demonstrate how differently how people view resumes. A lot of people were critical of the Rands article due to the fact that they believed that his process of scanning resumes faulty. However what they forget is that each manager does things differently. This goes back to the discussion on writing for your primary reader.
The way that I see it, in this instance Rands is actually not the primary reader. The primary reader is the recruiter or HR person. When you write your resume your goal should be to get them to take action and pass the resume on to their advisor or the secondary reader, who in this instance is Rands. After reading the article and the responses, I feel that if you consider him to be the primary reader then you will not effectively target your audience s not all managers look at resumes in the same manner.
embrace the scan
I like how you are not going against the grain with the whole scanning process. People seem to get bent out of shape when they find out that their resume they have spent 20 hours working on is only read for 30 seconds. When in reality, they should have taken that time and written a resume that is able to be read quickly and effectively. With all of the tools available there is no reason why we can’t construct an effective resume. I also agree with being able to think like the recruiter/HR person. Not only are we selling ourselves but we are trying to tell the recruiter what they want to hear.
People Need Criticism
I disagree. I believe the reason people get bent out of shape is because we do not get feedback on what we did wrong. Spending twenty hours on something we think is perfect only to have it be rejected in thirty seconds is a bit ridiculous. People need criticism or how else can we do better. Add in all the opinions people seem to have about resumes and we get the reason why we cannot construct an effective resume that will get us that interview. Trial and error is fine but not if you are applying for your dream job.
Jeff
On the contrary...
I respectfully disagree. Jonesae makes a sound point. By reviewing this article and analyzing how recruiters or HR reps will read our resume, we gain an insight into what we must present and precisely how to present it. The idea is to use this insight to our advantage by applying it to our drafts and yielding a more professional, readable, and overall more appealing resume. Furthermore, I do not expect to receive feedback from an employer to whom I submitted my resume if he or she had no further interest in me as an employee. It is one thing if I made an effort to follow up and requested why I was not chosen, but to ask a recruiter to notify each rejected applicant seems a bit much when they are already tasked with finding a new hire.
Insight
The only thing is that with these articles is that I do not think they give an accurate insight into the mind of a recruiter. It seems to me that every single person that will ever look at your resume will have different expectations and requirements. I understand where Jeff is coming from when he expresses the need for criticism. It would be nice to know what you are doing wrong, but I also understand that this is unrealistic. I think I was better off not knowing that recruiters and HR people will only be looking at my resume for 30 seconds.
Wishful thinking
I would love it if for every resume I gave out someone would sit down and say "Well we didn't give you this job because your resume lacks the formatting, or the style or whatever we are looking for." However this is never going to happen. Judging whether or not your resume is effective is quite difficult. If you get an interview was it because you randomly formatted it to suit that HR rep or was it because your qualifications match those that the job requires? I try not to worry about how my resume is formatted. As long as the content of my resume is tailored to the job I am seeking I'll I can do is hope the HR rep reads it as I wrote it.
While you can't get feedback from companies regarding your resume, you can also ask family, friends, or more importantly someone already in this dream job/position to look over your resume and offer advice.
Andy
30 seconds a long time
I really agree with DigitalSHU, you should write your resume to be read in about 30 seconds. In all reality there is really very little information that you would really stop and think about. It’s a resume, not poetry or some philosophy paper criticizing Sophocles, there’s really no deep meaning to it. The idea is to put something in it that stands out so that after the 30 seconds are up, he is left with questions about what is on it. That’s when they call you for an interview to discuss your resume. And that’s where the time is spent. I had one interview that went for almost an hour and half. Somebody spent an hour and a half on my resume!! I can’t imagine spending more time than that.
Not that hard
Part of the reason that I don't feel like making a scannable resume is that big of a deal is it isn't that hard. Take your beautifully and originally formatted resume. Highlight all of it, go to the formatting drop down and select clear formatting. Move around some tabs, adjust some headings to make everything flow well and you're done. Is this like throwing painting on a Picasso? Yes. Is it annoying to undo all your hard work? Yes. But it only took me the same amount of time to make it scannable as a recruiter is going to read it in real life. If it increases my chances of getting a job then I'm all for it.
Granted I have no idea if my normally formatted resume has ever been scanned and I haven't gotten a job based solely on a scanned resume so I am only assuming that these steps are enough to make it "scannable".
Andy
A Great Exchange
I appreciate the discussion you all are having. You are addressing the primary concerns of these "high stakes" documents. The reason Jeremy and I have you read the Richardson piece is not because we feel he represents all other HR folks (who we might productively see as gatekeepers), but because he represents the kind of hard nose reader you should plan on. Whether it is fair to read resumes the way he does, it seems to be in our self-interest to assume this kind of reader: if we prepare for the worst we might get the best.
Whether Richardson's view is universal is not really the point; we assigned the reading because we feel writing for this kind of audience will result in the strongest documents. As a classmate argues, "it is in your best interest to be aware of the cut throat types."