We have all had to create one at some point or another. Some have very good ones, some have very bad ones. Some have them with lots of experience, others have very little. What am I talking about? Resumes! How many of us have spent hours and hours working to "perfect" our resume? I got an email from my cousin the other day who always helps me update my resume and make it look good, he sent me a link from an HR boss at google, who outlined what he considers a perfect resume, and what he looks for on them with applicants. You can read the article here.
The article talks about how for a person to have a perfect resume, they need to do A, B, C, and D. It goes over what people are looking for on the resume, why some people get call backs and others do not, it offers reasons as to why some people who think their resume is either really good, or really bad, feel this way. Its a different view on the resume, and one that interested me because I am often having to update my resume, and add and remove things, and make this change or that change to make sure that it is up to date and how I would like it to be.
Laszeo Bock, who is the former Senior Vice President of People at google, mentioned a few things that he looked for in Resume's. It's hard to argue with what he says, simply because it is Google, one of the biggest company's in the world, so surely this man knows what he is talking about right? There was a lot of different Cogent information in this article. He mentioned that if your resume has typo's, it will likely quickly get disregarded. If it is too long, they wont waste their time going through it, if it is not formatted simply enough, they will trash it, and if as their going through it, and they are finding that you are mentioning personal information about the company you previously worked for, they will think you are un loyal and dishonest, whether your intent was to slander the previous company or not, that is how they will view it. You can see all his reasons for those comments here.
All of these are good points and great tips and for the most part are very beneficial. However, what I didn't like in the article is the way he painted it to be that this is the only way a resume should be made, if you do any of these things wrong or different, you don't stand a chance at getting a job. Though that might be true at Google, it is not always going to be the case. There are more companies out there than just Google, there are different people who look at resumes, who look for different things and are more open to things and less open to things, it is always going to depend on the company and will always depend on the person who is reading the resume and making that decision.
For the most part, the article didn't have a lot of Falacious stuff in it, other then it kind of generalized all companies and like I said above, made it seem like there is only one way to do it and one way only. I personally know that is not the case. I have worked several jobs, and my resume has been different each time. I have turned in long ones, short ones, good looking ones, very plain ones. To me, it really depended on the job I was going for, and what I felt I needed to cater my resume to, and I feel that's what this article left out, was it doesn't all have to be one way, and really, isn't that the case for all things? There isn't hardly ever just one way. Everyone has a way, a view, a opinion, etc. In the case of resume's, I don't think its a bad thing to take Bock's suggestions considering who he works for and what he's been able to accomplish professionally, but I also don't think he know what every single company in the world looks for in a resume.
No comments:
Post a Comment