When I was recently interviewed by USA Today’s Anita Bruzzese (45things.com), I found her so interesting to talk to and had so many questions that I got off script and forgot to mention some observations about today’s resume. I summed it up by telling her that trying to make one of today’s traditional resumes exciting is like trying to breathe life into a sock puppet.
Here are the 3 main problems that make resumes flat as a flounder:
1) Empty Language
The language utilized in 99% of resumes has basically been drained; its empty of force even though it retains limited context, but for all practical purposes, its about as revealing of the author as a crude poem. English has only so many action verbs to offer for use in describing work and responsibilities. The fact is, everybody is using the same words and not in that different a structure. (Just ask someone who reads them.) It all sounds and looks the same: unappealing, noncreative, uninformative.
2) The Hiding “I”
The resume writer is a tightrope walker, trying to adjust to the balance and tension of the fine line between “not saying enough and saying too much.” It is a tension of the “I” trying to be recognized through the reading of a document whose historical nature has always focused on the so-called ‘objective’ past. That’s the wrong essence to be built around, the past, and they focus entirely on describing events that frequently leave out the most important details, rather than explaining the story of how your character at work played a role in the workplace drama. Because work is not just about functions, but about people and their personalities, viz, character, that should become part of the story, but in resumes, its missing with the “I” of I did, I was, I (fill in with the action verb of your choice). And even if you are still working and describing your job responsibilities in the present tense, we all know that if you are looking for a new job, you are mentally “gone” from your present job, you’re ready to move on. You’re already looking at your job from the POV of the future looking back.
3) Lousy Bait, No Story
I just don’t think resumes work anymore to tell the story of you, the unique character who shows up at work along with the crowd. We get lost in the crowd so easily. I mean, if you are just a regular person who isn’t interested in anything more than the minimum requirements, regular resumes still do the grunt work of getting the bare facts across the table, but that's all. I defy you to find a typical resume that tells an interesting story or gives you a clear impression of what kind of person stands behind all the stuff that is said to have been done here and there.
For high performers and achievers with a larger drive of motivation and ambition, you need something special, something different that makes you stand out, and that's a stunning and exceptional bioblog, a powerful expression of you as a personal, stand-alone brand.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
ARE YOU AFRAID OF YOU?
If you are afraid to bioblog you might be fearful of revealing your creative character. You need to get over the concerns that somehow you will "tell too much" by being different (by bioblogging rather than resume-ing). You are different, aren't you? Isn't that one of your main selling points? Isn't that what employers are looking for? They know that they are not going to replace one exiting employee with an exact replica (nor would they want to, usually) and are fully prepared to deal with the verisimilitude of you as presented in your bioblog. It's what they do, melding unique individuals and their creative characters into a common drive and goal. You actually help them by demonstrating (with your bioblog) up front that you know what you're offering, that you are clear about what they are getting, and that you need to know what the parallel truth is: What will you be getting. By putting your public persona's creative capabilities on the front burner in the job-related communications, you do a service for them and simultaneously give yourself an edge; you strengthen your negotiating stance by focusing the issues on what they have to offer, not just what your brand's make-up is comprised of (potential based on know-how combined with experience).
In the rough tumble of the world of work, there simply is no room for fear, for being afraid of yourself. The belief that you can do a tough job and take on a difficult challenge for the simple rewards of succeeding is essential to your public persona's believability factor; it's a no-brainer that if they sense that you doubt yourself, they will too, as playing it safe is generally more predicatable and less costly than taking a long-shot risk. This doesn't mean that you are limited to your experience or that you are totally subject to the glaring omissions in your background (no degree, short term chronologies, inconsistent story), but it means that you must be able to make sense of your unique background and gel it all into a worthy story that leads to a tangible, realistic, and interesting goal. If you can tell your story well, you have conquered fear. Creating a believable bioblog is a good step and valuable exercise in this process.
In the rough tumble of the world of work, there simply is no room for fear, for being afraid of yourself. The belief that you can do a tough job and take on a difficult challenge for the simple rewards of succeeding is essential to your public persona's believability factor; it's a no-brainer that if they sense that you doubt yourself, they will too, as playing it safe is generally more predicatable and less costly than taking a long-shot risk. This doesn't mean that you are limited to your experience or that you are totally subject to the glaring omissions in your background (no degree, short term chronologies, inconsistent story), but it means that you must be able to make sense of your unique background and gel it all into a worthy story that leads to a tangible, realistic, and interesting goal. If you can tell your story well, you have conquered fear. Creating a believable bioblog is a good step and valuable exercise in this process.
THE 3 WORST THINGS ABOUT MOST RESUMES
When I was recently interview by USA Today’s Anita Bruzzese (45things.com), I found her so interesting to talk to and had so many questions that I got off script and forgot to mention some observations about today’s resume. I summed it up by telling her that trying to make one of today’s traditional resumes exciting is like trying to breathe life into a sock puppet.
Here are the 3 main problems that make resumes flat as a flounder:
1) Empty Language
The language utilized in 99% of resumes has basically been drained; its empty of force even though it retains limited context, but for all practical purposes, its about as revealing of the author as a crude poem. English has only so many action verbs to offer for use in describing work and responsibilities. The fact is, everybody is using the same words and not in that different a structure. (Just ask someone who reads them.) It all sounds and looks the same: unappealing, noncreative, uninformative.
2) The Hiding “I”
The resume writer is a tightrope walker, trying to adjust to the balance and tension of the fine line between “not saying enough and saying too much.” It is a tension of the “I” trying to be recognized through the reading of a document whose historical nature has always focused on the so-called ‘objective’ past. That’s the wrong essence to be built around, the past, and they focus entirely on describing events that frequently leave out the most important details, rather than explaining the story of how your character at work played a role in the workplace drama. Because work is not just about functions, but about people and their personalities, viz, character, that should become part of the story, but in resumes, its missing with the “I” of I did, I was, I (fill in with the action verb of your choice). And even if you are still working and describing your job responsibilities in the present tense, we all know that if you are looking for a new job, you are mentally “gone” from your present job, you’re ready to move on. You’re already looking at your job from the POV of the future looking back.
3) Lousy Bait, No Story
I just don’t think resumes work anymore to tell the story of you, the unique character who shows up at work along with the crowd. We get lost in the crowd so easily. I mean, if you are just a regular person who isn’t interested in anything more than the minimum requirements, regular resumes still do the grunt work of getting the bare facts across the table, but that's all. I defy you to find a typical resume that tells an interesting story or gives you a clear impression of what kind of person stands behind all the stuff that is said to have been done here and there.
For high performers and achievers with a larger drive of motivation and ambition, you need something special, something different that makes you stand out, and that's a stunning and exceptional bioblog, a powerful expression of you as a personal, stand-alone brand.
Here are the 3 main problems that make resumes flat as a flounder:
1) Empty Language
The language utilized in 99% of resumes has basically been drained; its empty of force even though it retains limited context, but for all practical purposes, its about as revealing of the author as a crude poem. English has only so many action verbs to offer for use in describing work and responsibilities. The fact is, everybody is using the same words and not in that different a structure. (Just ask someone who reads them.) It all sounds and looks the same: unappealing, noncreative, uninformative.
2) The Hiding “I”
The resume writer is a tightrope walker, trying to adjust to the balance and tension of the fine line between “not saying enough and saying too much.” It is a tension of the “I” trying to be recognized through the reading of a document whose historical nature has always focused on the so-called ‘objective’ past. That’s the wrong essence to be built around, the past, and they focus entirely on describing events that frequently leave out the most important details, rather than explaining the story of how your character at work played a role in the workplace drama. Because work is not just about functions, but about people and their personalities, viz, character, that should become part of the story, but in resumes, its missing with the “I” of I did, I was, I (fill in with the action verb of your choice). And even if you are still working and describing your job responsibilities in the present tense, we all know that if you are looking for a new job, you are mentally “gone” from your present job, you’re ready to move on. You’re already looking at your job from the POV of the future looking back.
3) Lousy Bait, No Story
I just don’t think resumes work anymore to tell the story of you, the unique character who shows up at work along with the crowd. We get lost in the crowd so easily. I mean, if you are just a regular person who isn’t interested in anything more than the minimum requirements, regular resumes still do the grunt work of getting the bare facts across the table, but that's all. I defy you to find a typical resume that tells an interesting story or gives you a clear impression of what kind of person stands behind all the stuff that is said to have been done here and there.
For high performers and achievers with a larger drive of motivation and ambition, you need something special, something different that makes you stand out, and that's a stunning and exceptional bioblog, a powerful expression of you as a personal, stand-alone brand.
TOTAL ENGAGEMENT
The July 30th issue of Business Week's MediaCentric article by Jon Fine describes how the newly revamped Nielsen SoundScan system tallies up sales data by measuring "engagement" rather than "page views" of the old days. What Nielsen is focusing on is how long a viewer views a page, not that the page is being viewed, and it this "engagement" that is the critical factor in compiling the algorithm of ratings. That makes sense in the Malcolm Gladwell sense of "2 seconds" of attention most people or issues get a first glance--particularly resumes. This initial "first glance engagement" is about a nanosecond originally, with the viewer's "mental instincts" and "marketing saturated POV" determining whether to continue, to dig deeper, to allow another second or so.
In bioblogging, this is the given: You aint got much time. Seducing your reader-viewer is not something you have the luxury of time for because they are going to move on to the rest of the "me-docs" wanting some little bit of attention. And since biobloggers know this and make it the platform for developing the strong, attention-grabbing graphic that will be responsible for the first nibble (of the bait), they also know that the image must be woven easily, quickly, seamlessly into the textual content in a complimentary and inviting fashion. Deconstructing text to basic messaging format (dates, titles, the basics) makes it all digestible quickly.
Another given, in all resumes regardless of form, is that more information is always available to the reader if it is requested, so there is never any rationale for trying to plug in everything onto the page to tell the whole story. (If you took 10 pages you probably wouldn't be able to tell the "whole" story of bosses and their personalities, ego trips, crazy corporate policies, outdated systems, overloaded organizations, unrealistic expectations and lousy teamwork.)
Engagement: first glance, second second, point made, bait taken.
Engagement: process of active viewing requiring creative thinking and an open mind.
Engagement: 2-sided process where writer stimulates reader in a provocative manner, for a clear reason.
Engagement: first step of wondering, "what is this?" and "what does this mean?"
In bioblogging, this is the given: You aint got much time. Seducing your reader-viewer is not something you have the luxury of time for because they are going to move on to the rest of the "me-docs" wanting some little bit of attention. And since biobloggers know this and make it the platform for developing the strong, attention-grabbing graphic that will be responsible for the first nibble (of the bait), they also know that the image must be woven easily, quickly, seamlessly into the textual content in a complimentary and inviting fashion. Deconstructing text to basic messaging format (dates, titles, the basics) makes it all digestible quickly.
Another given, in all resumes regardless of form, is that more information is always available to the reader if it is requested, so there is never any rationale for trying to plug in everything onto the page to tell the whole story. (If you took 10 pages you probably wouldn't be able to tell the "whole" story of bosses and their personalities, ego trips, crazy corporate policies, outdated systems, overloaded organizations, unrealistic expectations and lousy teamwork.)
Engagement: first glance, second second, point made, bait taken.
Engagement: process of active viewing requiring creative thinking and an open mind.
Engagement: 2-sided process where writer stimulates reader in a provocative manner, for a clear reason.
Engagement: first step of wondering, "what is this?" and "what does this mean?"
LIKEABILITY VS JOB SKILLS: WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT?
"Employers hire character traits, not just skills." I quote myself, as I have been saying this for 40 years. (Check out the 1st edition of The Resume Writer's Handbook, published in 1978, if you don't believe me. It was true then and is even more so now, if that's possible.)
My own research that led me to this conclusion was face-to-face interviews over decades with some 5-6,000 workers in my many resume writing offices across the fruited plains; and because many (if not most) of these clients were typically responsible in their various jobs for seeking, screening, interviewing and/or hiring other workers, I became well-versed on what their priorities were. Above all, they sought new hires who exhibited the "character at work" that would fit in best with the company's public culture and personal teamwork structures: e.g., if they needed an aggressive team player to help lead a new branding program, they were not looking for a quiet, studious type of person--they wanted an extrovert, an outgoing Type A to be the point person in the marketplace. Even if they could get all the skills plus more for half the price in another candidate who lacked the personality for the team, they would not be interested, as one ill-fitting team member can cause the whole team to steer wrecklessly and off the road.
Now here's proof in objective research. Professors Tiziana Casciaro of the Harvard Business School and Miguel Sousa Lobo of Duke University have determined from their studies that "most people prefer to work with a 'likeable fool' rather than a 'competent jerk' and (here's the clincher) in situations where people can choose or influence whom they work with, they are more likely to pick someone who is likeable, even if they are not the most competent, rather than work with someone who may be extremely competent but is difficult to get along with.
It's really a matter of meshing characters at work. The authors of "Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social Networks" (Harvard Business Review) point out as well that the two main criteria guiding people in their formation of highly important social networks are likeability and competence at the job. It seems that people (and that includes the people who are "the employers", the deciders, who make the hires) are more willing to accept or try to make up for deficiencies in the skills of people they can work well with than they are to deal with the unpleasant personality of a higher skilled person who makes worklife difficult.
This just demonstrates what we all already know, and it doesn't apply simply to managers and leaders.
The relative points here are:
1) bioblogs give a candidate an opportunity in advance to present that pleasant, well-fitting character they need
2) no resume of any form can really tell the whole story (the part that includes the jerks and their influences)
3) bioblogs can paint a strong picture of likeability in the light of flexibility/adaptability, rising to challenges, etc.
4) pleasant workers (even if less fully skilled than desired) are fun to be with -- something a bioblog can highlight
5) likeability can be deconstructed for the particular job, as it is not the same for all vocations and levels
6) unless your work is very technical, it is likely that the specific skills you have will need revising/updating elsewhere
7) skills alone have never been the issue at the top levels, where personalities drive companies from the corner office
8) skills cannot be surgically removed from the owner's character at work (it's not what you have but how you use it)
9) personality at work is creative character under duress: how well do you operate in the social theatre of work?
Like I've said for 40 years: they hire people, not skills. Wouldn't you?
My own research that led me to this conclusion was face-to-face interviews over decades with some 5-6,000 workers in my many resume writing offices across the fruited plains; and because many (if not most) of these clients were typically responsible in their various jobs for seeking, screening, interviewing and/or hiring other workers, I became well-versed on what their priorities were. Above all, they sought new hires who exhibited the "character at work" that would fit in best with the company's public culture and personal teamwork structures: e.g., if they needed an aggressive team player to help lead a new branding program, they were not looking for a quiet, studious type of person--they wanted an extrovert, an outgoing Type A to be the point person in the marketplace. Even if they could get all the skills plus more for half the price in another candidate who lacked the personality for the team, they would not be interested, as one ill-fitting team member can cause the whole team to steer wrecklessly and off the road.
Now here's proof in objective research. Professors Tiziana Casciaro of the Harvard Business School and Miguel Sousa Lobo of Duke University have determined from their studies that "most people prefer to work with a 'likeable fool' rather than a 'competent jerk' and (here's the clincher) in situations where people can choose or influence whom they work with, they are more likely to pick someone who is likeable, even if they are not the most competent, rather than work with someone who may be extremely competent but is difficult to get along with.
It's really a matter of meshing characters at work. The authors of "Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social Networks" (Harvard Business Review) point out as well that the two main criteria guiding people in their formation of highly important social networks are likeability and competence at the job. It seems that people (and that includes the people who are "the employers", the deciders, who make the hires) are more willing to accept or try to make up for deficiencies in the skills of people they can work well with than they are to deal with the unpleasant personality of a higher skilled person who makes worklife difficult.
This just demonstrates what we all already know, and it doesn't apply simply to managers and leaders.
The relative points here are:
1) bioblogs give a candidate an opportunity in advance to present that pleasant, well-fitting character they need
2) no resume of any form can really tell the whole story (the part that includes the jerks and their influences)
3) bioblogs can paint a strong picture of likeability in the light of flexibility/adaptability, rising to challenges, etc.
4) pleasant workers (even if less fully skilled than desired) are fun to be with -- something a bioblog can highlight
5) likeability can be deconstructed for the particular job, as it is not the same for all vocations and levels
6) unless your work is very technical, it is likely that the specific skills you have will need revising/updating elsewhere
7) skills alone have never been the issue at the top levels, where personalities drive companies from the corner office
8) skills cannot be surgically removed from the owner's character at work (it's not what you have but how you use it)
9) personality at work is creative character under duress: how well do you operate in the social theatre of work?
Like I've said for 40 years: they hire people, not skills. Wouldn't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
