| Christian Sepulveda's Blog | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
September 23, 2005
Guidelines for Being a Strong Job Candidate
I have interviewed a lot of people over the years. (I've hired over 50 people, interviewed hundreds, phone screened many more and read thousands of resumes.) While I don't claim to be any sort of recruiting expert, there are two things I can intelligently (as much as I can for anything else) speak of: trends in resumes / candidates and guidelines for being stronger on both. The single most important fact to understand as a job seeker is: A prospective employer has no attention span whatsoever. Your goal is to get the attention of the person who will actually decide to hire you and make clear why you are different from all the other candidates she comes across. Employers must sift through many resumes (there were times I would look at 100 resumes a day) and frequently cannot afford to spend a lot of time on a resume. Assume you must communicate in 10 seconds a reason that the employer should continue reading. Recruiters, internal or external, are not your target audience. While you may need get past them to reach the actual employer, never forget that your message should be targeting the actual employer. While this sounds obvious, you are selling yourself to an employer. However, most resumes I see are not selling but reporting. Listing the details of each job, tool, language, API, or activity from your entire experience is not effective. A general sales adage is a product should be made easy to buy, not simply easy to sell. When faced with buying something that is a "no-brainer", there is no selling. A candidate should always consider the perspective of the employer; what would make it a "no-brainer" to hire me? There are many different approaches and considerations for how a candidate can position herself as an obvious choice. Ultimately, I think it can be summarized by two questions (from the point of view of the employer): What can this candidate do for me? How does this help me? The first question is about the results the candidate can achieve or deliver. The second is about the match of these skills for the employer's context. The following are some guidelines for candidates: Overall
ResumeA resume makes the first impression. It must get someone's attention immediately and should answer the two most important questions above for the employer.
Almost 100% of the resumes I read look the same. They all share the same subset of technical jargon references and technologies. There are many, many J2EE, .NET, C++, etc. developers. It is almost impossible to differentiate yourself in this category. Though a technical profile is obligatory, as a technical worker, it should be brief and contain highlights. I suggest putting it at the end of the resume. The technical profile of a resume is the source of the largest mistakes in candidate positioning, so I will babble and rant about this a bit. I think the reason for these mistakes are:
The first point is probably pretty obvious and I won't discuss it. The second is also common, though I discourage it. The last reason is the most significant: frequently resumes are so poor (or there are so many) that employers have little choice than to screen based on technical profiles. However, I think there are a few mistakes being made here. First, candidates try to keep as many options open as possible and this actually hurts them. Few people are experts in the large lists of technologies, languages and tools commonly listed on resumes. Even if you are, simplify. For example, if you've worked with many Web Service / SOAP technologies, write in your technical profile something like "SOAP / Web Services expert (worked with Axis, WebMethods, BlueTitan ...) instead of listing the 20 different Web Service related frameworks you know. Alternatively, if your goal is to work on web services, only list the web service frameworks you know and omit the other items such as object relational mappers, databases, etc. Listing too many elements in a technical profile has the risk of implying indecision and insecurity. Don't list technologies you don't really want to work with. Also, a candidate that doesn't care what technologies they work with (when they are listing many, unrelated technologies) seems to have little career focus. Finally, it may convey insecurity in the candidate; it can make a candidate look desperate and thus undesirable. Less is more. Phone ScreensIn over 90% of the phone screens that I do, I know if I will pursue a candidate in the first two minutes of the phone screen. A phone screen is intended to serve answer one question: Should I invest the time to formally interview this candidate? Formal interviews are generally very expensive to conduct and therefore most organizations don't do them lightly. There are a few things to keep in mind at this point.
If you are looking to work for me...This entire blog entry is biased about making a candidate attractive to me, as an employer, but there are a few other items of note:
ConclusionEmployers hire people, not cogs. A candidate should never forget that an employer is investing in a person and should do everything they can to position their value as an individual to an organization. If you are seen as just a Java developer who knows SOAP, you are easily replaced. Great employees, however, are assets to companies and rare. Posted by csepulv at September 23, 2005 05:53 PMVery nice and practical essence! Especially I love the extreme item "1 page only. No exceptions." I'll cut now my 2-page resume in half:-) Posted by: Roman Rytov at October 19, 2005 09:06 PMVery nice post and a practicaly minimized list of advice of what to do and do not. Especially I love the point about one page resume. I'll cut my two page resume in half now:-) Posted by: Roman Rytov at October 19, 2005 09:11 PMVery useful post! I'm a developer and my resume could use some tips like these. Until now my resume was actually a list of all the projects I had done, with the technologies used. I always thought that is what recruiters wanted, but now I see my mistake. I'll be updating my resume even though I don't need to find a new job :) Posted by: Nico Mommaerts at October 19, 2005 11:07 PMI made a lot of interviews as job candidate and also had a chance to interview people who are candidates for a job in my company - so I have experience in both sides. Here are my thoughts: Thank you so much for the article. I've been on both sides of this topic and I like what you have to say about it. The lack of focus in the resumes is something I find all the time. I may also have been someone who has done that myself at times. I think it comes down to a matter of pride for some people. Since they have spent so much time learning these different things they feel the need to jam them all in the resume somehow, or maybe that is just me. Anyway, what you say makes perfect sense. Thanks Posted by: Jason Darrow at October 20, 2005 10:32 AMInteresting summary, but at least in many engineering fields I would have to disagree with the one page thing. Most recruiters/jobs I have talked with used something along |
cs@atdesigntime.com Syndicate this site (XML RSS 2.0)
Search
Archives
November 2005
October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 October 2004 March 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003
Recent Entries
ANN: Website Facelift and New Blogs
The Power of the Collective Brain Agile 2.0 and Web 2.0: A Perfect Match Fitness Functions and Agile Development Agile, Waterfall and Core Assumptions Three Important Considerations for a Candidate Guidelines for Being a Strong Job Candidate
Links
Browse By Category
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||