Question:
I checked out a link that someone posted to the list recently (I'm sorry
that I can't find either the URL or who posted it) to an article on how to
write one's resume. There were a few "makeovers" in PDF format as
illustration of ways to make a resume more scannable and readable. One of
the suggestions was to re-organize the resume so skills and experience were
grouped by type, not the position at which the skills/experience were
gained/used. Employment was listed later, with just bare bones information.
Ex. Old Resume
ABC Finance Co.
Anytown, IL
May 1995-Sept 1997
Created manual for a blah blah application using HelpTool.... wrote and
presented training on blah blah...
Ex. New Resume
END USER DOCUMENTATION
Created manual for blah ....
etc.
EMPLOYMENT
ABC Finance Co. etc.
I thought this was a great idea, and created a new version of my resume in
this format.
Last week, I was contacted by a recruiter who wanted to submit me for a
position (that I'd incidentally love to land: it's a temp to perm with a big
finance company and I think I'm perfect for the job). She asked me to send
her my resume, so I sent her the new version. First she told me on the phone
that the format was terrible, that employers aren't used to seeing resumes
in that format, and that they want to know at which jobs I got or used
skills. I said no problem, and sent her the old version. Then, through a
series of calls and emails, she had me re-tweak the resume several times to
include specific mentions of every job at which I used MS Word, Excel, and
PowerPoint, because the job description specifies that these are required
tools. I pointed out that I had MS Office listed on my rez, but she said
that wasn't enough, and that HR people wouldn't necessarily know that Word,
Excel, and PowerPoint are part of the Office suite.
She told me my resume would be reformatted and that any errors would be
corrected by her company. I told her that I would want to make any necessary
formatting changes and corrections myself, because as a technical writer,
format and spelling are so important on a resume. She got hugely defensive,
saying she's been in the business x years and knows what she's doing, etc.
Every email she's sent me has had several grammatical and spelling errors,
so that makes me more nervous about this company futzing with my resume. (I
didn't say that to her: I figured she's already defensive.)
So I guess I have a few questions about this experience:
* Do you think it's a good idea to sort the meat of a resume by skills
rather than by employers?
* Should anyone doing a first pass on resumes for a tech writer position
know that MS Office contains Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, if these are
required tools?
* Should I have even the most basic tools on my resume, everywhere I used
them, or should I only apply this treatment to more TW-specific tools like
RoboHELP and just mention once that I know how to use these tools?
* Was this recruiter definitely rude and defensive, or is it just my
neurotic opinion?
Answer:
- 1) Possibly, but more when freelancing or if you have a spotty work
history. I have had the same experience, that most employers prefer my
chronological resume, rather than my functional resume.
2) Probably, but you can say you used MS Office and only have used two of
the three listed tools. Being specific is more clear.
3) Only for this job. Otherwise, the resume is to get your feet into the
door. I think listing each tool in each job description *usually* is too
much information. But the recruiter knows the company and if that is what
they are looking for, so tailor your resume for the audience. I have been
asked to do this once, so it is rare but not unheard of. I still use my
more generic resume, with tools and areas of expertise on top in a Summary
section and summarized job history (as well as education etc.) in order of
job for most jobs. However, I have been known to tweak the resume slightly
for a specific job or for a specific new area of interest.
4) I have no idea, not having been there.
I do, however, ask for an *edit* of their formatting changes rather than
*doing* the formatting for them. Many consulting companies have a specific
set of fonts and styles they use. For me to ask to proof that is not an
insult to them, but they may not want to let me do the formatting.
If a recruiter got defensive on me, I would just reply that I totally trust
her, but even the most experienced person sometimes could use a proofing,
and it would make me feel better. I would just soothe her hurt ego and go
ahead and make it like a little favor she is doing for nervous li'l old me
to let me proof. It is a professional courtesy that most consulting
companies have allowed me. The only time I don't get to do it is when the
turnaround to get the resume out is too tight. It also helps to avoid
misunderstandings with clients, like when the recruiter puts skills on my
resume that I don't have. Not that I would suggest to the recruiter that she
does that -- just that some other, less scrupulous recruiters have in the
past. It's not about her; it's just my policy. Etc...
- I got *extremely* positive feedback from my current resume.
A former resume started with bulleted general experience followed by work history. But I heard enough negatives about that style from hiring managers on this list that I decided to change it.
My current resume lists experience by employer with a brief description and sometimes bullet point "highlights" for each job. I did *not* specify which software I used per job unless it was relevant to a project I was already mentioning. A separate Skills section lists software and my proficiency.
Check out the "t-letter" article on the techwr-l web site. The idea is to answer each qualification in a job post with relevant experience. The article offers some good advice on how to do this, and while the article advocates submitting this letter in lieu of a resume, it worked very nicely as an accompaniment.
The important thing is to be specific. If the requirement says, knowledge of HTML, you respond "designed and developed XYZ corporate web site, using server-side scripting to streamline content delivery..." You might follow up each response with "primary software: ....".
One great thing about this qualification summary/t-letter is that it, and not your resume, is tailored to the job opening. But the big advantage is that any resume reviewer can quickly see how you match up with what they're looking for. It makes the process so much easier for them.
Although I only used the t-letter twice, both interviewers commented on how much they liked it, including the person who ended up hiring me.
BTW--re Office vs. Word/Excel/etc. I was conflicted about this also a few months ago, but I quickly learned there are plenty of people who don't know that Word, etc., is part of Office. I would definitely itemize, such as: "MS Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access)".
Re whether you're neurotic... The recruiter sounds a little anxious herself--maybe she needs this contract as much as you do? It seems like you could retain control over your resume while managing to do her a favor? If they send you a template of their format and you do all the work getting it into shape, could that work? Alternatively, could you ask to proof a final version before it goes out to the client?
Re basic tools--Word was my primary tool for writing and producing print documents, so although it may be a "basic" tool, it was certainly relevant. I wouldn't list Word with respect to my current job (it's a Frame shop), but would still include it in my general software skills list.
- Ordering by employers is somewhat more common in my experience, but,
when in doubt, do both. Include a Summary at the start that briefly
lists your skills.
Resumes are often sorted by clerical staff who are told to look for key
words. Many would probably have this basic knowledge, but you can never
been sure. I've met people who didn't know that they had been working on
Windows for the last three years. Since the change is minor, following
the recruiter's suggestion seems sensible here.
Use your judgement. Scan the ads in the area and include the
frequently-requested tools.
Not being there, it's hard to say. However, here's a few things to think about:
- The recruiter sounds as though she might know the market, even if her writing skills aren't very good. Are you sure you made clear that you were talking about the writing and punctuation?
- Like many people on this list, she may be more careless in informal e-mails than in ones in which she presents a client. So, she could still do a good job for you despite your misgivings.
- Pointing out people's mistakes in grammar and punctuation without being asked is a very common way to put people down. It can come across as snotty, especially if the person is already defensive about their writing skills. As a general rule, I never comment about a person's mistakes unless specifically asked to.
- A recruiter comes across a lot of people who think they know better. No matter how justified your comments, you may have just slotted yourself into this category for her. If so, then she may be less willing to put herself out for you by giving you advice about how to improve your resume.
- Since you had a valid reason for concern, you should have proceeded with some diplomacy. After all, you probably need the recruiter much more than she needs you. For example, you could have asked to see the revised resume before she sent it out on the grounds that her changes might help you to find ways to improve it. Or, perhaps, you might ask her to be sure to use styles if she made any changes; if she had no idea what you were talking about, you could explain the importance of a tech-writer using them in a resume; you'd get what you wanted, and she would learn more about her job, and nobody would be insulted.
- If you think you might work with the recruiter or her company again, you might want to check that there's no hard feelings. An effective recruiter is well-worth cultivating.
