After reviewing all those resumes, one thing has become obvious: almost nobody spends the right amount of time creating them. Some people spend far too much; some spend far too little. Some clearly have agonized over every word, perfecting the right action word (spearheaded instead of led, etc). Some whip something up in 10 minutes in a haphazard, half-hearted application. This claim begs the question - what is the appropriate time to spend on a resume?
Answer: An amount of time that is in relation to the effectiveness and importance of the document.
The resume is probably about the third or fourth most important thing in a job search and should be treated with such respect. If you're relying on your perfect resume to get you the job, you're doing it wrong. This isn't a trusted adage in recruiting, but it should be - posting online with your resume is how people who don't get the job apply.
This isn't to say you shouldn't put time or effort into it. You should spend enough time to accomplish the following goals:
- highlight your relevant experience, focusing on measurable success. When possible try to focus on numbers (rankings, metric impact, anything that is quantifiably tied to the bottom line)
- Don't metaphorically throw up on yourself - Avoid spelling mistakes. Don't put your picture on the top. Don't put emoticons in it.
- Make it follow a clean, consistent format.
- Your previous job title / briefly scan responsibilities
- Professional awards
- Gaps in employment / Job-hopping tendencies
- Education
Some will argue, then, that even more emphasis should be placed on one's resume. I will disagree, noting that every activity in the job search has an opportunity cost. If you spend 10 hours on your resume when you could have spent 2, you are missing out on 8 hours of networking, which tends to be much more effective at yielding job opportunities. And the difference between an 10-hour resume and a 2-hour resume will probably have negligible effect on whether I'm interested in picking up the phone and speaking with you.
A final thought: Candidates who come to me who have professionally networked their way into being considered for positions represent probably about 50% of the hires I make, but represent about 1-2% of the candidates.
I like everything above, and would only add that the calculus of time-rationing might differ significantly for someone who is out of work, thus having an abundant supply of time.
ReplyDeleteNetworking is still a priority, but your supply of network assets is finite, and can become over-saturated if you're calling them all every two weeks. Network lunches also carry a not-insignificant cost for those out of work (maybe stick to coffee?).
At that point, spending more time on your resume, and especially your cover letter and follow-up letters, can be quite valuable, and marginally free. If you have some cash on hand, but find your networking pool is narrower than you had hoped, a cheap stack of business cards might be a good investment.
@AveSharia
ReplyDeleteExcellent points, per usual. My overall philosophy on resumes is that it has a very quickly declining marginal return on investment. Clearly the majority of the time you need a resume to get a job. You might even need a passable resume to get an interview. Every step in quality above "good" becomes less and less important and the job seeker will see less and less of a return on his or her time.
Networking, on the other hand, may not have a declining marginal return on investment. If it does, the threshold to begin seeing the marginal decline is likely much higher.
Another point that I did not consider in this inaugural post is perhaps there are times during which are networking is not best suited - like 2am on a Wednesday morning. In that case, an argument could be made that those hours may be best used for non-face-time activities like resume polishing for the out-of-work job-seeker. I'm not sure I buy this argument completely, though. Assuming the mobility of a candidate (big assumption), and the tools for social networking in today's connected world, I think a lot of effort can be exerted during hours in which people are not traditionally in the office. I would be of the opinion that those hours likely could yield better results making LinkedIn connections, sending emails, researching companies, preparing a list of people with whom one could network, and perhaps even sleeping.
In regards to your point about networking lunches, I'll agree. My philosophy on networking is similar to my philosophy on first dates - keep it inexpensive and casual. The difference between buying somebody a cup of coffee and a lunch can be significant, but I find little evidence that it makes their opinion of you change. It’s also less awkward when the check comes around.
I would like to offer a point of divergence from your final paragraph. While you did not explicitly group them together, I think it’s important to separate a resume from a follow-up letter. Those are exactly the kind of activities that I would suggest a typical job-seeker to spend more time on, in lieu of the ever-evasive task of perfecting a resume.