Confidential Résumé Writing

Letting politics interfere with employment

I first encountered Kenny in 2010 during his last revolving-door job search. In terms of his job-hunting prowess, Kenny represents today’s version of an April Fool.[1] More than five years lapsed, and to our mutual dismay, he had not changed. He blamed his lack of employability on Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and women who don’t know their place. More recently, he added the leftwing media and Muslims to his list.

Kenny showed up on the eve of 2016, still sporting his red flip phone that had never been setup to retrieve missed calls. The Gmail account I setup for him years earlier had gone unused, and he had long forgotten the password. As a result, he limited his job search solely to ever-dwindling want ads appearing in the local newspaper.

Kenny’s troglodyte ways left me breathless and astounded. The hours spent showing him how to access technology had gone unused. Nor did he avail himself to my prior job-hunting suggestions. There was nothing to indicate things might be different this time around. I bit my tongue while anticipating he would proceed to blame others for his predictable circumstances.

For me, Kenny represents a case study in the lengths some jobseekers will go to camouflage failure. Depending upon one’s source, there are more than 4 million job openings currently available. Clearly, 98% of the advertised openings can be found using basic technology. Yet there he sat—the epitome of a here-to-day: gone tomorrow job chaser—clutching a newspaper with only one want ad.

Kenny initiated the session by inquiring as to my political beliefs. His first question was, “Do you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?” I challenged him on what that had to do with seeking new employment, and he simplistically responded with, “Everything. Besides, I need to know we are on the same page.” My previous suspicions about Kenny’s beliefs contributed to his inability to hold substantive employment was reaffirmed.

For the next 20 minutes, I indulged him, while he extolled upon me Limbaugh’s virtues, and whom he supported for the upcoming GOP nomination, and why supposing the frontrunner would make America great again. The more he rambled, the more I realized why a political entertainer known for his bombastic and narcissistic rhetoric appeals to April-Fools mentality struggling to find outdated glory.

Kenny represents a throwback to the Reagan-era, a time before the onset of today’s technological reality. As technology changed, Kenny put up stiff resistance, which over time, caused him to become overwhelmed, and he eventually fell further and further behind. To compensate for his resistances to change, Kenny bought into the Twilight Zone concept of creating his own reality, where every problem has a simplistic, quick fix solution.

“Building a great wall will solve our job-stealing immigration problems,” he proudly assured me.

Hoping to jolt him back into reality, I asked him, “Have you asked anyone from East Germany how well their great wall worked for them?” Kenny ignored the question as if it failed to register.

Kenny is heavily betting on an April Fools’ agenda that alludes to rolling back time. The slogan ‘make America great again’ has resonated and generated unrealistic beliefs. As an aging white male who let time, tide and opportunity slip through his fingers, he yearns for any huckster who will confirm his racial hatreds and support his darkest fears—a technique perfected under fascism by the Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels.[2]

We finished Kenny’s project by providing him with exactly what his asked for, but not necessarily with what he needed. As we parted, he assured me that I was the one being fooled and misguided by so-called radical extremists and reliance on technology. I, however, was equally convinced that Kenny was letting his politics interfere with employment reality.

We waved our goodbyes, while I smiled with incredulity.

[1] Those referred to as April Fools (or April Fish) dates back to the mid-1500s. They were best known and heavily chastised for being slow to catch on to change.

[2] This is a sad commentary for those who fail to learn the lessons of history.

Job hunting is about your connections

Today, job hunting is all about having (and building) connections and relationships. Although not the easiest method, the premier approach for accomplishing this is your LinkedIn account. For those seeking employment at the executive level, this is a given.

Even for those seeking non-corporate-level opportunities, a presence on LinkedIn is a prerequisite for securing meaningful employment. For jobseekers, locating key decision makers within an organization amounts to priceless information. You hinder your employment (social-selling) options whenever you wing it.

To illustrate, we will use two jobseekers (Joe and John), both of whom have nearly identical skillsets, education and experience. Both are seeking identical positions at the mid-executive level.

Joe’s job-hunting method amounts to chasing job ads posted on various career boards. The instant a job posting appears, he responds to it with his generic salutation e-cover and résumé. Because Joe has a solid background, and his presentation is respectable, he hits the average response rate of 5:1, which means for every five contacts, he generates an inquiry.

Joe’s method is by far the easiest and least time-consuming. The moment he receives notice of an opening, he can respond to it in under five minutes. Occasionally, he will customize the e-cover to address a specific issue prior to pressing the ‘send’ button, but beyond that, Joe’s job search routine involves little time and effort.

From a behaviorist’s perspective, Joe’s approach pursues the path of least resistance. It works for Joe just enough for him to keep using it. Naturally, if his method generated no results, he might chance changing it. Unwittingly, however, he has marginalized himself, as well as new employment prospects.

John’s approach to job hunting used the social-selling method. Being social-media savvy, he invested his time and efforts building relationships on LinkedIn. He started his job search by identifying those potential employers for whom he might want to work.

From John’s LinkedIn account, he selected ‘Interests’ and placed selected companies under his ‘Following’ category. Once that was completed, he began searching those companies for key decision makers within his field of expertise. Each time he located a relevant decision maker within one of the companies, he sent a request to follow that individual.

John’s next step involves visiting the companies’ websites, and applying for specific positions directly. His e-covers address key decision makers. John uses the time between sending his résumé and waiting for a response to study the company, its products and services. He familiarizes himself with the company’s history and current events.

If Joe and John were simultaneously interviewed, only one stands a chance of delivering an award-winning interviewing performance. When asked, “What do you know about our company?” Joe would no doubt do his best to fudge a response. John, on the other hand, would be dropping names, facts and statistics. He might even know the CEO’s golf handicap. Any guesses on which one gets invited back for a second interview?

5 things more important than your résumé

While most jobseekers believe their résumé is the most important factor in a successful job search, five items outrank it. The résumé covers two critical factors: To generate interviews and provide recruiters with an interviewing tool. Beyond that, these ‘other’ factors can easily stymie a brilliantly crafted résumé.

In reverse order, they are:

#5 A poorly organized job search

It is hard for some to connect the dots between having a solid résumé and a poorly organized job search. When the résumé fails to reach the right types of decision makers, the jobseeker cannot blame that on anyone other than him/herself. Most jobseekers lack a strategic plan and opt to proceed haphazardly. Don’t blame your résumé writer for this blender.

#4 Questionable background check (including weak references)

As the position’s importance escalates, so will the background scrutiny, including quality of references. Employers—usually through their HR departments—will scrutinize public records (especially driving and court records). Those dealing with students, large sums of cash and/or highly sensitive information should automatically expect a background examination.

#3 Sloppy appearance and health issues

With few exceptions, show up for an important position poorly dressed, or appear to need life-support and employment prospects rapidly dwindle. A few exceptions might include high-level computer geeks or perhaps a disheveled prize-winning physicist. Otherwise, the jobseeker better have super-rare skillsets the employer desperately needs.

#2 Poor interviewing performance

Very few jobseekers openly admit they have interviewing deficiencies. Once this state-of-denial sets in, the jobseeker sees nothing to correct. Now, the jobseeker has to rely heavily on the other candidates delivering a poorer interviewing performance. The ratio of this occurring is 5:1. Best hope none of the other candidates bothered to prepare either.

#1 Jobseeker’s credit report

The granddaddy of all job killers is a questionable or conflicting credit report. The median FICO score is roughly 700. That’s good enough to buy a car, but no cigar for landing substantive employment. The detailed credit reports include your employment history, which best not deviate from your brilliantly crafted résumé. (You have the legal right to make corrections, but most do not bother.)

If your résumé is halfway decent, and you are not landing the offers you anticipated, look into these ‘other’ factors. If you are not getting in the door: than it’s time to track down a résumé writer. The Better Business Bureau is a good place to start.

Spotting “victim” jobseekers

In the competitiveness of hiring others, interviewers proceed like the Greek philosopher, Diogenes. In lieu of finding the honest employee, today’s interviewers are often charged with spotting liars, con artists and employment frauds. There is, however, another group of jobseekers. This group often goes unnoticed, because they portray themselves as “victims.”

Obviously, employers want to avoid pathological liars and frauds, but victims are supposed to fall under a different category. The interviewer has to know what telltale and engrained behaviors to look for in spotting these pseudo-victims.

Chronic pseudo-victim jobseekers qualify as obsessive-compulsive behavior. The individual acquires “victim” status once the individual resorts of blaming others for practically everything negative. In other words, these type of victims avoid taking responsibility: Thereby shifting the focus toward others—presumably beyond their control.

The drawback in hiring pseudo-victim employees is that their refusal to accept their mistakes are a sure-fire guarantee they will continue to shift accountability. After all, in their eyes, they are doing nothing wrong, and therefore, there is no behavior to change.

No one is born with this condition. This behavior is developed early in life. It is usually copied behavior from a parent, caregiver or other role model. As a child, the individual was exposed to the behavior and it became reinforced by mimicking the role model. The victim status often goes unnoticed unless the interviewer specifically probes for it.

Job interviewers will have a preset list of questions they ask all jobseekers. One of the best technique involves probing for negative information with a beguiling smile. Some interviewers will confess terrible admissions just to lessen tension. The interviewer balances both positive and negative inquiries to avoid overtly alerting the job candidate to the technique being applied.

To identify those who claim “victims” status, the interviewer only scores responses to the negative probing questions, and ignores the well-rehearsed positive responses. While this may appear counter intuitive, those with shift-the-blame mentality quickly emerge.

Invariably, the pseudo-victims will consistently shift negative circumstances to others. It is hard, if not nigh impossible for the job candidate to avoid this behavior, since it has been engrained since childhood. By age 30, it becomes part of the individual’s psychological makeup.

Naturally, those who accept responsibility for their mistakes are scored favorably, while those who avoid taking responsibility steadily rack up negative points. It takes less than a half dozen negative-probing questions before the skilled interviewer has the candidate properly identified.

Avoiding hiring mistakes is not an easy task. Conducting thorough background checks is the quick-fix method for catching frauds and liars, but it is not a bulletproof technique for those claiming victim status. Many pseudo-victim candidates slip through the cracks due to rushed interviewing techniques. For this reason, many employers use a sequence of interviews to gauge and evaluate candidates seeking critical and high profile positions.

This multistage approach should include at least one psychoanalyst or behavioral specialist experienced in catching phonies, interviewing frauds and pseudo-victims. Unfortunately, too many employers proceed on gut feelings and decent credit scores to identify their candidates.

While the Greek philosopher, Diogenes, died more than 2,500 years ago, some things do not change much. In this regard, the quest to find honest job candidates continues.

Résumés that annoy employers

The majority of jobseekers seem oblivious to simple résumé basics. Résumés serve two purposes: (1) it is an ad highlighting what a job candidate has to offer, and (2) it provides an interviewing guide for employers. –That’s it! All other aspirations amount to a figment of one’s imagination.

What employers want and what jobseekers provide are oft-times at odds with one another. Employers will conduct background checks: You would be amazed at what many attempt. Here are a dozen classic missteps (résumé faux pas) to avoid.

What employers want:	What employers receive:
Readable résumés.	Tiny typefaces are difficult to read easily.
Concise sentences.	Strings of prepositional phrases intermingled with superlatives that make little or no sense to anyone other than the jobseeker.
The position being sought with clarity and brevity.	Vague and over-generalized verbiage expressing an interest in being able to perform practically anything. (Yeah, right.)
Clear responsibilities.	Exaggerations and puffery abound. (No surprise here.)
Fewer bullets.	Endless bullet points that intermingle job responsibilities with accomplishments, forcing recipients to guess what is important. (Not everything qualifies as important—somethings are givens.)
Reasonably accurate dates.	40% fudge dates. Some even resort to making up employment.
Accurately stated degrees.	Almost 30% outright lie. (This is an easy one to catch.)
Accurate job titles.	About 30% stretch the truth. Most claim to be Consultants.
Relevancy.	60% throw in everything, hoping something not relevant will stick. Others reminisce about their early glory days.
Relevant references.	Friends and relatives with different last names are common.
Clean layouts.	Busy-busy and razzle-dazzle layouts that confuse the reader.
Error-free material.	Grammar, syntax and spelling errors run rampant.

Employers also like to receive internet-friendly material. It is amazing the amount of résumés that cannot be opened or require special software to access.

At Confidential Résumé Writing, we make a serious effort to avoid these classic errors. Most clients listen to our advice, but not all. Some jobseekers only listen to the voices in their head. Unfortunately, that goes part-and-parcel with today’s job-hunting reality.

Armed with the most fabulous résumé on earth, there are a couple items no résumé writer can camouflage. If an unchecked credit report says one thing and your résumé claims something else, guess which version employers believe? —Not your résumé. Jobseekers have the legal right to correct credit errors and inconsistencies, but less than 5% actually perform this due diligent task.

Another issue no résumé writer can correct involves inadequate preparation for interviews. Though we provide detailed instructions, less than 10% exert the time and effort needed. Oh-well, c’est la vie.

Copyrighted © by Robert James

Spotting Outdated Jobseekers

If you are one of those prone to reminiscing and start telling an employer about your best bygone years, you may be driving a nail in your job-prospecting coffin. Jobseekers need to evolve or risk perishing like analogue (outdated) technology.

Recently, a plethora of résumés arrived from jobseekers requesting reviews and suggestions on what could be done to improve their job-hunting prospects. Half projected a Rip Van Winkle image. Several of their job histories stretched back into the 1980s.

When I suggested that there was no need to delve into outdated history, several exploded with anger and dumbfounded bewilderment. The common response followed this line of rationale: “I was told employers want to know about all my experience,” or “If I leave anything out, isn’t that being deceptive?”

Whenever you are invited to a job interview, you have already met or exceeded the basic criteria for holding the position. Now it becomes a matter of second-tier elimination. This is where the jobseeker proceeds to eliminate him/herself.

Most jobseekers, however, never reach this stage in the selection process. They eliminated themselves during the first-tier screening process. Where did they shoot themselves in the foot? When they attempted to market outdated experience.

Depending upon the position and prerequisites, and amount of employment history to include depends greatly upon what’s relevant to the here and now. Beyond a certain point, the average employer becomes increasingly less interested.

For example, if the average employment opportunity requires five- or perhaps eight-years’ of experience and you attempt to cram 20 or 25 years down their throat—it won’t work.

Now we come to what most employers deem as their rule of thumb. Whenever an employer announces they are seeking to fill a position that requires a specific amount of experience, piling on additional years often proves counterproductive. Solution: Give them what they need and want to know.

Once you overreach and send an employer too much information, it might as well serve as your obituary or epitaph. Naturally, there are always exceptions. These usually involve organizations that have paid committees to screen applicants.

The academic communities are idiosyncratic for exhaustive details, followed closely by the medical community. The government, however, prefers shorter résumés, but often include lengthy applications. Applications however, rarely reach most interviewers’ desk.

The rest of the real world is on a quick-time schedule. If the individuals reading the résumé are not being paid extra to scrutinize and digest the information you provide, they are not interested in wasting their time. For those markets, brevity and conciseness carry the day.

Employment economics

Let us face reality: Changing employment can be a pricey endeavor no matter how you juggle or manipulate the figures. There are both out-of-pocket expenditures, plus the psychological and emotional cost factors. There is no free lunch when it comes to securing new employment.

The out-of-pocket expenses are obvious. There are interviewing wardrobe to consider, grooming expenses, transportation costs, as well as potential agency and résumé writer fees. Eventually, the dollar amounts add up.

On the flip side of the equation, there are hidden costs associated with routine disruptions, planning and scheduling interviews, physically and psychologically rehearsing for interviews and follow-ups. These additional stress factors also extract a mental health toll. Sashay into any interview unprepared and the consequences almost instantly come back to bite you.

Here’s a shocker: Most jobseekers cut corners. Habitual cost cutters often know the price of everything, yet the value of nothing. These types fall under the category of Kmart shopper, and are easily sucked into bargain-basement come-ons.

In employment situations, poverty mentality can prove to be a costly economic decision. Lose a few critical job offers or be forced to start over from scratch because your résumé cannot get past Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) are prime examples. Other jobseekers show up dressed for failure, or pancake during a job interview.

Equally bad is not getting interviews due to an ill-conceived résumé. Most, however, will pursue sloppy job hunting methods, which in turn can be a costly decision. We often pursue what is perceived to be the paths of least resistance, which are sometimes associated with ‘quick-fix’ solutions. Here are the three most common examples:

Quick-fix solution	Cost factors
Prepare the résumé yourself or have a friend or relative do it free.	Fewer interviews, and less likely to be taken seriously.
Saturate the job market with your résumé to cover all bases.	Alerts employers that you are an amateur jobseeker, and that you are open to any low-paying job available.
Skip practicing/rehearsing for interviews until the last minute.	You will appear unprepared and stupid during interviews.

Each decision a jobseeker makes has a cost-factor associated with it. Sometimes the cost is blatantly obvious, and sometimes the cost does not materialize until disaster befalls the individual down the road.

It’s a lot like not buying car insurance: If you stay out of the job market, your odds having a serious job-seeking accident are pretty low. Start driving sloppy or reckless on the high-speed employment highway, and your next accident awaits you just around the next bend. Sometimes the cost of not hiring a professional can be the more expensive option.

Why practice for Interviews?

Not everyone makes sound decisions. (No surprise there.) One might suppose it would be in one’s best self-interest to get it right—especially if the decision involves something important like job interviewing. What may surprise many is that most of our decisions amount to spontaneous choices without consideration given to long-term consequences.

In short, we usually choose ‘feels good’ options, rather than what might benefit us in the vague and distant future. Behaviorists refer to this as instant gratification versus delayed gratification.

The problem with instant gratification decisions is that they usually trump logic, reasoning, and common sense. Only when something goes materially wrong or disaster befalls the individual do we instantly acquire 20/20 hindsight. To illustrate this concept, we will use job interviewing.

We start by posing a question: Is it a good idea to practice for job interviews? The overwhelming majority (95-98%) agree that it is. With such an overwhelming percentage in lopsided agreement, does that imply that most jobseekers will in fact practice for interviews? – Absolutely not!

Statistically, 80% of jobseekers perform badly in interviews. It turns out that less than 20% actually practice for them. Within that 20%, less than half of those that do practice actually exert a bona fide effort. (Now we’re talking single-digits.) The slightly larger portion will focus only on those questions that might pose an interviewing challenge to respond honestly. (Shocking as that appears, many will focus on rehearsing something that sounds good or plausible.)

New question: What could possibly account for saying one thing, and then proceeding to do quite the opposite?

The rationales generally follow this line of reasoning: “I am pretty sure I can wing (or b.s.) it. Therefore, investing the extra effort would be a waste of time.” The short-term gratification: Extra time to do something else and the time required to seriously practice has been conveniently avoided. Voilà.

Here is another popular rationale jobseekers tell themselves: “Practicing for job interviews is an excellent idea, but the position may not be the right opportunity for me. Therefore I need to wait for the right opportunity before exerting the extra effort.” The short-term gratification: No effort required, self-imposed expectations lowered, and the notion of potential failure temporarily avoided.

Both examples represent beautiful rationalizations but nonetheless flawed. Honing the skillset and rehearsing for job interviews is an enormous, time-consuming challenge that can easily consume several weeks. If it were as easy as popping a pill to get rid of a headache, a whole lot more jobseekers would opt to do it.

Confronting reality can be a scary proposition, which accounts for why many avoid it. When an individual does not like the available options—including the obvious or long-term solution—the individual tends to ignore or deny the problem. Thus, by denying the problem, it leaves nothing to fix, and thereby eliminating the painful inconvenience.

If you changed careers, what would you do?

Have you ever thought about changing careers? Most do; fewer actually do it. Those that think about it and do often act out of boredom, frustration or dissatisfaction with what they have been doing. The rest tuck the notion into the back of their minds and plug along with whatever.

Transforming the psychological and emotional fear factors is critical whenever you attempt changing careers. To resolve that element, one has to have an honest come-to-Abraham moment. That has to occur before turning wishful thoughts and desires into employment reality. Toying with one’s livelihood qualifies as serious business. An employment misstep or error in judgment can be catastrophic. That notion alone has caused many a wannabe jobseeker to take a prolonged pause.

How should one attempt to address changing careers? How you think, evaluate and process information will determine how you initially proceed. Employers give younger jobseekers greater latitude in which to make career changes and employment mistakes.

That attitude changes once the jobseeker reaches his or her mid-thirties and beyond. Whenever a middle-aged jobseeker tells an experienced recruiter or potential employer he or she is making a career change, the jobseeker often receives the cold shoulder.

Awhile back, the wife of an unemployed Executive Chef contacted me. The wife informed me that her husband had been on a six-month hiatus due to being fed up and burned out. She said he needed to find another career, and forwarded me his résumé.

His 15-plus years of progressive experience and education painted him as a talented Executive Chef who knew every aspect of the industry. When I asked him what he really wanted to do in terms of pursuing a new career, he informed me he was open to anything paying six figures—beyond that, he had no specifics.

I declined the project, noting that designing a résumé for an unknown career amounted to taking his money under false pretext. I would update his résumé, however, as long as it was for another Executive Chef’s position.

His wife had grown concerned, as their financial reserves had dwindled. I recommended they have a come-to-Abraham moment, and reach a decision. With that, he decided to return to what he knew best.

Making a career change is not an impossible mission: This occurs regularly. What’s important is the quality of the career change. Desire alone rarely carries the day, and employers are more prone to hiring experience over a jobseeker’s new-career aspirations.

Those separating from military service often confront this dilemma. The key is finding suitable civilian employment that utilizes the individual’s transferable skillsets. That same principle applies to those considering a drastic career change. In the majority of situations, one has to consider the possibility of accepting lower pay or a less-prestigious position.

Leaving a job search to happenstance is risky. The safer method involves careful resource planning, assessing tangible and intangible assets, as well as taking decisive action. In many situations, another degree or certifications may become mandatory.

From a marketing perspective, changing careers amounts to selling one’s potential. When you know your potential as it relates to undertaking a new career, and can marshal your assets in a concise and engaging presentation, your chances of success dramatically improve. All other options reduce to a futile exercise in wishful thinking.

Does your résumé jump the shark?

Several résumés arrived via email last week; two of them caused me to think of William Jennings Bryan. Not prone to giving old William much thought, but the bombastic tenor of those two presentations may have triggered a subliminal relapse.

Old William’s claim to fame was that he ran three-times for the presidency and was a self-professed biblical scholar who represented the prosecution in the Scopes Monkey Trial. William did not cotton much to science or evolution. (Hmm? Who said history doesn’t repeat itself.) William was also a renowned orator, given his proclivity for making long-winded, boastful speeches.

Most résumés fall somewhere between mind-numbingly blasé, or proceed in the puffery direction. If old William were alive today, his résumé would gravitate toward closed-minded extremism. Résumés outside these two extremes appear sorely needed these days.

To escape being labeled bland, many jobseekers opt to jump the shark. By that, I mean they infuse charged rhetoric into their material that would cause all but an egomaniac or politician to blush. (That may blur the lines of separation.)

To novice résumé readers, the following might sound appealing. For those required to suffer through mounds of bombastic rhetoric however, the task can be daunting. The opening paragraphs are often designed to appeal to anything and everything imaginable.

Highly motivated leader with more than (fill-in the blank) years of strong experience and a passionate desire to achieve phenomenal results seeks a creatively challenging opportunity to demonstrate a track record of accomplishments, management responsibilities and (fill-in the blank) expertise. Extensive experience in strategic and organizational planning, superior written and oral communication skills, and extremely dedicated and driven to delivering the highest quality of (fill-in the blank).

Wow! No flies on this jobseeker. Not a signal-overused buzzword was overlooked! If you were to receive several hundred résumés with similar hyperbolic jargon,[1] how bowled over would you be then? At what point would your brain cells numb and your eyeballs roll before you mumbled, “What a bunch of unfiltered malarkey.”

Many jobseekers thirst to “stand out” from the crowd. They are oblivious to the reality their competition entertains identical aspirations. The cogent strategy is to avoid the extremes and strive to come across as authentic, genuine and real—sans the b.s.

The bygone era of William Jennings Bryan may have past, but not his flair for unabashed efforts to self-promotion. Nothing speaks louder about a jobseeker than his or her résumé. More often than not, the hyped message sent is not the same as the one employers received. When this occurs, your résumé has probably jumped the shark.

[1] Buzzwords should not be confused with keywords. Keywords tend to be associated with specific occupations, and vary according to the position being sought. Hence, keywords for one type of employment may not relevant to another occupation.

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Confidential Résumé Writing - Robert James

Navigation