Writing Effective Resumes

"I am talented, give me a job where I can grow."  But its not about you.

I critique quite a few graduating senior college resumes. The major problem I see in most is leading with the “self”, rather than leading with benefit to the employer.  So, in your Job Objective, start with (a) what you will do for the company first, then (b) how you will accomplish it. 

For example, instead of:

“ I am seeking a product sales position with a company that can take advantage of my broad-based business education and diverse skills.”

Write something like:

"Seeking a sales position where I can significantly increase sales productivity and revenue for the company utilizing my broad-based business education and diverse skills.”  

     

In Job History, once again start with (a) benefit to company followed by (b) what you did.  And numbers significantly help strengthen  the “benefit” statement.  It should be about the benefit to the company, not about you.  Most resumes are written exactly backwards. 

For example, instead of:

“Armed with my knowledge of surveys and focus groups, ran online surveys, did extensive market research on effectiveness of company advertising.  Results were used to modify advertising strategy.”

Write something like:

“Advertising effectiveness increased 35%.  Increase a result of recommendations drawn from online surveys and market research on effectiveness of company advertising.”

Or instead of:

“I used my quantitative and excellent analytical skills to provide cost estimates in response to work order requests.  I conducted on-line and data base searches for new business potential.”

Write something like:    

"Increased sell-through by 50% of products new bid projects. Identified fifteen to twenty qualified sales opportunities per month through on-line and data base searches for new business."

It’s always good to demonstrate first real value, quantitatively if possible, to the company followed by what you did.

Getting a job: How to reduce "friction"

Lots of students are discouraged finding a good job.  Employers that want to hire are often reluctant to take a chance on someone who is not exceptional, or proven.  I know, I've hired hundreds, if not thousands, in my career.  So here's some advice I've offered to many students, from an employer's point-of-view, and I can now claim that today's award of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Peter Diamond of MIT, Dale  Mortensen, and Christopher Pissarides supports it.

 

It's all about "friction".  An employer hiring you is taking at least a 12 month risk and cost or more.  If six months in, you're not a good fit, it will take at least another six months to get you out.  Much, much more importantly, and rarely mentioned, in the collateral damage and indirect cost you cause on your fellow employees when this unfortunate sequence plays out.  That's part of the "friction" in hiring.

 

Here's a simple solution.  When you find a position you feel you are qualified for, a trustworthy firm,  and it's attractive to you (i.e. it's in your "passion" zone), make the following offer: I will work for you in this position for 2 weeks/2 months/pick-your-interval for FREE and, at the end of that work interval, we will sit down and assess my performance. I agree that, if for any reason, you wish to let me go, I will do so without retribution, and simply leave, quietly.  If you decide to make me an offer, I can accept, and reserve the right to refuse the offer, or negotiate. Often, you can negotiate full back pay for that starter interval, or you can build that into the agreement upfront.

 

It costs you several weeks/months of work, but you get a good look at a job you think is a good one.  You get a chance to prove that you really are up to the task.  The employer gets a good look at you. He/she would be stupid not to hire you if you are as good as you think you are.  Meanwhile, the HR people and legal folks  are pulling their hair out because of this arrangement.

 

So let's congratulate Mssrs.Diamond, Mortensen, and Pissarides and reduce the friction.  Give it a try and let me know.

Numbers, numbers, numbers...

Let's say you make $20 an hour at your job. And you spend $40 for every hour worked hour out of pocket. Not just for a day, but every day. For the indefinite future. First, can it be done? And second, does it possibly make any sense? Fortunately for you, you can't do that very long, as your credit will run out very quickly, perhaps after six months or so.

The federal government is now spending twice what it earns (actually twice what we give them in taxes) with no end in sight. The debt limit of $14.3 trillion is not understood by most, and doesn't even include unfunded liabilities -- future obligations to pay Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and interest on that debt -- which brings the total closer to $80 trillion.

However, unlike you, they can continue to borrow, and borrow, and borrow. At least that's what most people are led to believe. And, they can ask the Federal Reserve, a private bank owned and operated for profit to, in effect, print more money.

If all money owned by you, all businesses, and the money in all American banks was sent to the federal government, there would not be enough to pay off the $14 trillion let alone the 80 trillion.

So I think you'd better plan to see inflation in your future as the feds ask the Federal Reserve banks to print more money. That's probably more important than trying to figure out how big a number a trillion really is.

On Job Creation

According to a research study conducted for the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, business incubators provide communities with significantly greater results at less cost than do any other type of public works infrastructure project. This is a government report by a government agency responsible for economic development.

Researchers found that business incubators are the most effective means of creating jobs – more effective than roads and bridges, industrial parks, commercial buildings, and sewer and water projects. Incubators provide up to 20 times more jobs than community infrastructure projects at a cost of $144 to $216 per job.
Compare that to what is reported by recovery.gov for the state of California:
-- cost per job via grants: $154,000
-- cost per job via contracts: $508,000
-- cost per job via loans: $4,100,000
[Ref: http://www.recovery.gov/transparency/pages/home.aspx?State=CA]

Business incubators also increase the likelihood of success on a new business by 5X [nbia.org].

At a time when I believe California has a unemployment rate close to 20%, should we be spending federal dollars on "job creation" or should we incentivize businesses to do the same?

Delayed gratification: Where do you stand?

You will find it helpful to think about your investment in delayed gratification. If nothing else, knowing this about yourself will help you make better life decisions.

I like to think about delayed gratification in life intervals in powers of ten; for example:
-- 50-100 years (e.g. investing in retirement savings)
-- 5-10 years (investing in your education, physical health, your children, etc.)
-- one-half-to-one year (saving for vacations, going on diets, etc.)
-- 3-6 weeks (planning a day off, an event with friends, etc.)
-- 2-4 days (what you'll plan for this weekend, dinner with friends, etc.)
-- 4-8 hours (how you'll spend your evening after work/school, etc.)
and less than 30 minutes (for those of you with weak powers of delayed gratification).

At this extreme, my dog Gershwin, for example, has a maximum delayed gratification period of about one minute. I can't motivate him to withhold gratification for more than that length of time, no matter how hard I try.

I found out fairly early in my career that I do not like to work on projects that have a 50-100 year time frame or longer. At least one of the graduate research theses that I completed had a challenge with a 100+ year time frame, it was unlikely that I would witness "significant" results in that field during my remaining lifetime. After several degrees and numerous jobs I have settled in on 5-10 years maximum as my limit of "delayed gratification" in a job of project, and am much more comfortable with one-half to one year. There are two reasons for this: (1) I want to see results for my efforts in the fairly short term and (2) my interest level starts to drop after several years, and I want to move on to something else. I'm just not a good long term research person, and that's OK.

Not suprisingly, looking back on my career discover that I have changed my "job" in significant ways about every 3-5 years. I can identify about 10 distinctly different jobs and/or careers in my lifetime. Again, after 3-5 years I want to see measureable results attributable to my efforts and I get bored and want to move on.

Of course, not everything is quite that simple, and most efforts have a combination of short and long-term gratifications. I raise sequoias from seed, and their maturity is definitely in the 100+ year category. I will not live long enough to see the mature trees. However I do have the pleasure of accomplishing seed germination (very difficult!) and seeing them grow in the 5-10 year timeframe. And there is this mysterious often uncharacterized component of delayed gratification that benefits not me, but someone else, namely, those who will hopefully appreciate those trees 100-500 years from now.

So what is your interval of acceptable delayed gratification? And is it aligned with life decisions that you make?