11 DOs (and 6 DON'Ts) to Maximize the Impact of Your Resume

Writing the perfect resume is a daunting task, and it is important to do everything you can to make yourself stick out (in a good way). Recruiters pore over volumes of resumes and may spend mere seconds looking at each one. As someone who has reviewed hundreds (maybe even thousands) of resumes myself, the following is advice to help your resume stand out.

Overall

DO spend some time thinking about what kind of job you are applying for, who is likely to review your resume, and what they are looking for. Focus yourself on questions like What adds the most value to my personal brand? and What sets me apart from the competition?, especially as it relates to the specific job and/or company to which you are applying.

DO develop your story to have the most positive impact possible. Minimize non-relevant information and focus on demonstrated impact and results.

Formatting

DO organize your resume in order of relevance. If your educational degree(s) will set you apart, put that before work experience (or vice versa, if work experience is most relevant).

DO be consistent with fonts, headings, dates, locations, etc. The more consistency there is, the easier recruiters can find the information they are looking for. Using templates, learning to right justify text (e.g., dates), and maintaining adequate white space help your resume to look professional.

DO be creative and recognize the potential that electronic resumes bring. Most recruiters will be viewing your resume on some form of computer, tablet, or phone screen. Consider embedding links to relevant online pages, like your LinkedIn profile, professional blog, work samples, or the corporate webpage for companies listed in your work experience. This gives resume reviewers an option to seek out additional information, without taking up valuable additional space on your resume. Another possibility is using color to add visual appeal, but be careful that it isn't distracting and that the resume still works if printed in black and white.

DON'T use jargon or abbreviations unless you are 100% sure that reviewers of your resume will understand them. Instead, use more general and readily understandable terminology or spell out potentially ambiguous abbreviations. Similarly, don't use contractions, which are often viewed as informal and unprofessional.

Education

DO focus on what sets you apart from the competition. For example, did you get a 4.0 GPA in college? Then list that under your degree. Did you get a 2.3 GPA in college? Then leave that out. As a general rule, list things like awards, GPA, and extracurriculars only if they help you tell your story and have a positive impact.

Work Experience

DO be concise and simplify as much as possible. Try to limit yourself to 2-5 bullet points per job, and try to keep each bullet point on a single line. This forces you to clearly and distinctly summarize the job, because recruiters do not want to slog through irrelevant details.

DO list bullet points in order of relevance, importance, or impact for each job. Whatever is most likely to make you stand out should be listed first to catch the recruiter's attention.

DO focus on quantifiable results, wherever possible. Instead of just listing your job duties, find way to demonstrate your impact, accomplishments, or learning in objective terms. Instead of saying Conducted sales calls to develop new client relationships, say something like Increased new clients by 30% and revenue by $250,000 through targeted phone campaigns.

DO use active, powerful verbiage to illustrate your duties and accomplishments. For example, Member of team that set company sales record could have much more impact when stated as Actively engaged new clients as part of a team that set company sales record.

DON'T copy and paste the same bullet point into multiple jobs or use the same verb for sequential bullet points or bullet points within the same job. These things demonstrate a lack of attention to detail or a lack of effort in compiling your resume.

DON'T include irrelevant information. Focus on the job duties and accomplishments that are pertinent to the job and company where you are applying. Including all prior work experience, even when it is not relevant, will dilute your resume. As recruiters scan your resume, they are just as likely to focus on irrelevant information as they are on relevant information. So highlight the things the recruiter wants to see by getting rid of the rest.

What to Exclude

DON'T include a Summary/Profile/Objectives statement. This is typically full of subjective information (I'm a hardworking, conscientious people-person...) or information that is redundant. Recruiters already know your objective (to get the job) and should be able to put together their own profile of you based on the clear and concise information in your resume (e.g., work experience, education, etc.).

DON'T list your references (or even include a references are available upon request statement) unless specifically requested by the employer. The employer will assume that you can provide references and will ask for this information if and when it is needed.

DON'T include personal information. There is no need to highlight your love of fishing, watching football, knitting, or cooking - and definitely do not include marital or parental status. Keep your resume focused on job-related information.

Editing

DO have multiple people review your resume and give you feedback. It is hard to catch your own typographical errors, and others can help identify any inconsistencies or make you aware of anything unclear or confusing. It is always a good idea to get multiple honest perspectives about your resume. In the end, it is your resume, and you can choose what to incorporate and what to ignore from these friendly reviews. But it's better for a friend to catch a major error before your resume is in the hands of a company recruiter.

U.S. States with the Most Human Resource Professionals

There are a lot of blogs and websites out there comparing different states on a variety of attributes, such as religiousness, politics, environmentalism, etc. So why not compare states in terms of HR professionals?

Using the membership directory at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) as a proxy sample of HR professionals, I searched for SHRM members by state and recorded the results. To allow for a simple visual comparison, I have color-coded the results on the following map:

California (22,530) and Texas (19,834) have the most HR professionals by a wide margin. The next highest state, New York (14,748), has roughly 5,000 fewer HR professionals than Texas. States with the least HR professionals are Vermont (682) and Wyoming (465), with seven other states whose number of HR professionals do not reach 1000 (South Dakota, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, and West Virginia).

The map looks kind of cool, but in terms of useful information, the raw numbers don't really give us much. In fact, the number of HR professionals and overall state populations (taken from census.gov) are almost perfectly correlated (over 92%).

But what if we look instead at the proportion of HR professionals in each state? I took the number of SHRM members and divided it by the total population of the state to determine the overall percentage of each state's population that are SHRM members/HR professionals. The results of this analysis are found in the following map:

This map looks markedly different from the first. The highest percentage of HR professionals (.0041%) is found in Washington, D.C. - I know, it's not really a state - followed by Alaska and Virginia (both around .0014%), and then New Hampshire, Maryland, and North Dakota (all .0011%-.0012%). States with the lowest percentage of HR professionals are California, Hawaii, Nevada, West Virginia, and Mississippi (all .0004%-.0059%).

These results are a little more informative. First, we see that some of the lowest states in terms of raw numbers are actually relatively well-represented in terms of percentages (e.g., Vermont, North Dakota), while some that were highest in terms of raw numbers do not really have a high relative percentage of HR professionals (e.g, California). Second, for some reason, there seems to be more HR professionals relative to the general population as you move farther North in the U.S.

Finally, these data also reveal one of the potential weaknesses of using SHRM members as a proxy for HR professionals. SHRM's headquarters are in Virginia, just over the river from both Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Virginia, D.C., and Maryland were three of the top 5 in terms of percentage of SHRM members, which may reflect the local reach of SHRM more than the true proportion of HR professionals in each state.

The other thing that both sets of data make clear is that I am a huge nerd.

But if you happen to be one of the 682 HR professionals from Vermont and find yourself in a conversation with one of the 22,530 HR professionals from California, you can use this data to assert your state's HR superiority.

When tailoring your résumé can reduce the success of your job search

(image from pixabay)

I am currently on the job market and am in the process completing applications at a number of organizations. As I have been going through that process, the old adage to “always tailor your résumé to the job” has been on my mind. In most job hunting contexts, that adage makes sense. By tailoring your résumé, you are best able to highlight your strengths and experience that directly relate to the job in question. Therefore, by taking the time tweak your résumé, you are increasing the likelihood of making a favorable impression and moving forward in the selection process.

However, I propose that there are some circumstance where tailoring your résumé may not positively impact your prospects, and could even lessen your chance of finding a job.

1. When you are applying to nearly identical jobs: The main reason to make changes to a résumé is that different KSAOs are more relevant in some contexts than others. If the positions to which you are applying are essentially the same, reactions to résumé changes are likely to be trivial.
2. When time constraints are prohibitive: In a situation where you have limited time to apply to a high volume of positions, or when other duties - such as a current job - prohibit you from spending a lot of time completing job applications, you could do yourself more harm than good by making résumé changes. Think of it in terms of opportunity costs: Does the increased quality that results from tailoring résumés outweigh the quantity of applications that could be submitted if you didn’t tailor? While the answer will often be “yes,” there may be times when quantity trumps quality. 
3. When the jobs in question are not among your top choices: Imagine that you are applying for jobs, and have found a handful that you are very interested in, along with a larger group of jobs that would be okay, but not ideal. In this case, you should spend the majority of your time on that small handful of jobs - tailoring your résumé as closely as possible to the job description - and then send general, untailored résumés to the larger group. In a liberal generalization of Pareto’s Principle (aka the 80/20 Rule), you should spend 80% of your time on the 20% of jobs you really want, and 20% of your time on the other 80% of jobs.
4. When your résumé is already good enough: There is often a fear when applying for jobs that a résumé is imperfect or that you are not perfect for the position, or there is a fear of rejection that comes from putting yourself out there and letting someone else judge you. This fear can be paralyzing enough that the résumé is never submitted, because you never feel like it is just right. In effect, you are being your own judge and telling yourself that you aren’t good enough for the job. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN! Any submitted résumé has a better chance of being viewed favorably than no résumé at all. Don’t get me wrong - I highly recommend making the best résumé you can, including seeking feedback from friends and colleagues in order to make sure that the impressions you intend to portray are being interpreted correctly. BUT, as hockey great Wayne Gretzky once said: “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” Put yourself out there and let the decision makers tasked with reviewing résumés make a decision about your suitability and employment potential. Don’t let them off the hook by making the decision for them. And if you don’t get the job, try asking for feedback on what you could do to be a better candidate. In that way, even the negatives can provide valuable information that helps to improve your résumé for next time.

The Bottom Line

Tailoring your résumé to match the KSAOs laid out in the job description is often the best course of action, but only when it increases your likelihood of obtaining the ultimate goals of securing a job. Be mindful of the situations where résumé tailoring can do more harm than good.

Deconstructing Structured Job Interviews

 (image obtained from flickr.com)

I co-authored a recently-published study using a variety of methods to examine over twenty years of research on structured employment interviews. The full article runs over 40 pages long (not including 10 pages of references), but I'll save you the trouble of reading through the article in its entirety by highlighting some of the major conclusions:

• What is meant by a "structured interview" is inconsistent. There is general agreement that structuring an interview includes asking applicants the same questions and rating them on common rating scales, but there is less consensus on other characteristics that could be included in structured interviews, such as limiting follow-up questions from interviewers, limiting questions from job candidates, or taking notes.
• The most common techniques for structuring interviews are conducting a job analysis as a basis for the interview questions, using the same interview questions for all applicants, using better types of questions (such as situational and past-behavioral questions), using anchored rating scales, rating each question individually (as opposed to only making general ratings at the end of the interview), using multiple interviewers (i.e. panel interviews), and providing interviewer training.
• Smaller rating differences for legally-protected groups. Race, gender, and disability impact interviewers' ratings and decisions less in structured interviews, as compared to unstructured interviews.
• Applicants' ability to influence interviewers' rating is reduced. While impression management by applicants (e.g. self-promotion and ingratiation) is still a common occurrence in structured interviews, the effects of such behaviors impact interviewers' judgment less in structured interviews than they do in unstructured interviews.
• Personality may be more difficult to measure in a structured interview than in an unstructured interview, but little research has directly examined the topic of the validity of personality assessments in structured interviews.
• Situational and past-behavioral questions should be used together to attain maximum utility from the structured interview. Situational questions tend to measure job knowledge, while past-behavioral questions measure job experience, and they both are good predictors of future performance.

The article also presents over 30 research questions and propositions that can be used to guide future research and practice, but I will not summarize the details here. You can read through the article if you are interested in that specific information. But hopefully the bullet points highlighted above provide some interesting and useful information for those who currently use structured interviews in their selection process, those considering the use of structured interviews in the future, and those interested in researching the topic.

-------------------------------------
Reference:
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the recent literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241-293. doi: 10.1111/peps.12052.

Workplace Bullying and Organizational Culture: Learning from Jonathan Martin, Richie Incognito, the Miami Dolpins, and the NFL

(image from abclocal.go.com)

Taunts and trash talk abound in the National Football League (NFL), both in practice and on game days. Rookies are routinely hazed by being forced into bad hair cuts, paying for team dinners, or being taped to goal posts. The testoterone-laden culture of the NFL is one that encourages and prizes machismo and aggressiveness. But when do pranks, profanity, threats, and name-calling cross the line into bullying? This question is one that the NFL is struggling to answer on the heels of a recent drama that is still playing out.

Jonathan Martin recently quit his job as a football player for the NFL's Miami Dolphins  in order to receive help for emotional issues stemming from being the target of threatening behavior by teammate Richie Incognito. Incognito (who is white) reportedly referred to Martin (who is biracial) in text messages by using racial slurs and threatening to cause bodily harm to members of Martin's family. The Dolphins organization has since suspended Incognito and has said that it is working with the NFL to fully investigate the claims.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) defines workplace bullying as "persistent, offensive, abusive, intimidating or insulting behavior or unfair actions directed at another individual, causing the recipient to feel threatened, abused, humiliated or vulnerable."

These types of behaviors are what some academic researchers refer to as interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors. An employee (or group of employees) engages in behaviors that impede the ability of a coworker (or group of coworkers) to do their job. In the legal arena of human resources, this could also be considered as harassment when is based on legally-protected characteristics (such as age, race, gender, or religion) and creates a hostile or abusive work environment.

Whether you refer to it as bullying, harassment, or counterproductive work behaviors, these types of actions typically are not viewed positively in most organizations, and likely have negative consequences in terms of individual, team, and/or organizational productivity and effectiveness. However, the culture in some organizations may actually foster this type of behavior. Studies and surveys on workplace bullying have shown that bullies are most likely to be male, are most likely to bully other males, and the individuals exhibiting bullying behaviors often do so out of a sense of their own inadequacies. In an organization like the NFL, where teams are made up exclusively of male players, and where competition between teams (to make plays and win games) and within teams (for starting positions, spots on the team roster, and higher salaries) is constantly present, the environment is ripe for bullying to occur.

One recent academic article^[1] examining harassment concluded that organizational culture was one of the strongest predictors of sexual harassment, and the NFL is learning the hard way that workplace bullying is likely similar. Reports are surfacing that Incognito may have been encouraged and enabled by team coaches in his treatment of Martin. Teammates have defended Incognito's actions and questioned Martin's toughness. And throughout the league, it seems that Martin's withdrawal is seen with more disdain than Incognito's alleged behaviors.

As reported by Sports Illustrated, one former teammate of both players, who questioned whether bullying really occurred, stated the following: "What people want to call bullying is something that is never going away from football. This is a game of high testosterone, with men hammering their bodies on a daily basis. You are taught to be an aggressive person, and you typically do not make it to the NFL if you are a passive person. There are a few, but it’s very hard. Playing football is a man’s job, and if there’s any weak link, it gets weeded out. It’s the leaders’ job on the team to take care of it."

Whether you think this player has a valid argument or not, I think he got at least one thing right - bullying is not going to go away from the NFL, at least not without a cultural change. Not only is toughing out physical and emotional pain the expectation in the NFL, but inflicting that physical and emotional pain on others is often encouraged, if not celebrated. The NFL made a strong statement against intentionally inflicting physical pain after the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal a couple of years ago. Now it's time to see the statement they make against intentionally inflicting emotional pain in the current Miami Dolphins bullying scandal.

-----------------------------
^[1] Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee., K. (2007).A Meta-analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Workplace Sexual Harassment, Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x.

Halloween: 6 Tips for Avoiding a Workplace Nightmare

(image from monster.com)

October 31 is one day of the year where you never know what you are going to see. Zombies, superheroes, cartoon characters, celebrity doppelgangers, witches, and ghosts roam freely from house to house all night long. But even before the sun goes down, those same costumed characters can be found in a variety of workplaces. Before deciding if and how your organization will celebrate Halloween, it is important to consider a few simple tricks (and treats) that can help your festivities run smoothly:

1. Consider the Work Environment: Are there safety concerns if costumes are worn, such as on a manufacturing line or production floor? Ensure that you are not placing your employees at risk by inadvertently creating an unsafe environment. For example, one SHRM article suggests a pumpkin painting activity as an alternative to pumpkin carving. In addition, makes sure that costumes and decorations do not violate fire codes or OSHA safety standards.
   Do your employees interact with customers? If so, consider how the image that costumed employees may portray. What might be an acceptable costume in a theater or clothing retailer may be considered unacceptable at a family restaurant or financial institution. Remember that the front-line employees represent the organization to their customers.
   Finally, does celebrating Halloween in the workplace match the culture your company is trying to cultivate? These are questions you initially need to consider when determining what celebration (if any) is appropriate in your workplace for Halloween.
2. Determine the Invite List: If you decide that a Halloween shindig is in order, determine when it will occur (during work time? after hours?), and who will be invited. Are only employees allowed, or are significant others welcome? Is it an adult-only party or are families encouraged to attend? Make sure that the party environment, entertainment, and food/drink match up with the participants invited.
3. Communicate Expectations Clearly: If employees are encouraged to dress up in costume for Halloween, ensure that everyone knows what is appropriate. A minimum qualification should be that the costumes match your typical dress code by not being offensive, revealing, or otherwise in poor taste. Costumes that poke fun at religious groups, politicians, sexual orientation, race, or that may be otherwise inappropriate should be expressly not allowed. Similarly, if families are welcome, costumes that may not be appropriate for children (scary monsters, bloody zombies, etc.) should be avoided. Office decor (if allowed) should similarly reflect good taste. In addition to ensuring that everyone knows what is appropriate, you should also lay out the consequences of not following the guidelines.
4. Offer Awards: If employees are encouraged to dress-up, offer incentives to do so by providing prizes such as best, funniest, and most creative costume. Decorating work spaces and party activities (such as Pin the Bow Tie on Mr. Bones) can also have prizes attached. Ensure that the awards, prizes, and judging are all communicated clearly to employees to encourage costumes, decorations, and other activities tailored to the awards.
5. Do Not Make Participation Mandatory: While most employees may view Halloween activities as an enjoyable diversion from day-to-day work, an excuse to dress up in costume, and/or enjoyable interactions with coworkers, it is true that the origins of Halloween may make celebrating it uncomfortable for some employees. Whatever activities are done should be voluntary. Offer to let employees work from home or leave work early with pay if they are uncomfortable with celebrating Halloween, and ensure that no harassment takes place against anyone who chooses not to participate.
6. Consider Alternatives: Even if you decide that it is not worth the headache and potential complications that can arise from employee costumes or Halloween celebrations in the office, you might consider other ways to celebrate the season. For example, families might be encouraged to bring their children into the workplace after school for trick-or-treating, you could host a company luncheon, or you could stage a Fall Festival or Harvest Celebration.

Hopefully these suggestions help you avoid the pitfalls that can occur when celebrating Halloween in the workplace. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my own soiree . . . Argh! Where did I put my pirate hat?

Happy Mother's Day

(image from momtograndma.com)

Just a quick note to wish a Happy Mother's Day to all you moms out there. You are the real full-time human resource managers - 24 hours a day, without sick days, vacation time, or retirement. Your influence will live on for generations. I salute you for your tireless efforts in raising the next generation.