About a year ago, Michael Anderson posted a case-study in using infographics in a résumé. His concept was popular, but has become increasingly relevant in light of the state of unemployment. I’ve also become a little more passionate about this after looking at dozens of résumés the last few days, all of which are largely identical, save for the name at the top.
What’s important to learn about Anderson’s approach is not that it’s colorful (or all that accurate for that matter) but that it actually goes a few steps further in measuring things that matter. Listing software isn’t as effective as showing which software you use how often. Naming projects doesn’t explain how deeply one is involved or what type of impact it had.
I’m tired of trying to interpolate the quality of a person’s work based upon their longevity at a mediocre organization. I can tell who uses the Word Résumé templates and who follows the Monster.com Résumé Tips and Tricks. While these are de facto steps for the average applicant, that is precisely what they tell me as a prospective employer: how average the applicant is.
My current call-for-résumés has produced only 1 applicant who took a step outside the norm, though perhaps out of necessity. This particular applicant only had one job in their arsenal, so chose to list interesting books they’ve read. Whether they knew it or not, the applicant gave me more insight in five lines of text than others gave in two pages of fluff.
Fortunately, the total disregard for what is being communicated in a résumé (by “communications” professionals, no less) makes it rather easy to separate the wheat from the chaff in hiring.
Comments on this entry are closed.