TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Fitting a Job Ad (was Re: Misguided Love) From:Tom Murrell <trmurrell -at- yahoo -dot- com> To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:Thu, 4 May 2000 05:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
--- v2cdisrc -at- us -dot- ibm -dot- com wrote:
>
> [SNIPPAGE]
>
> What I am trying to do is examine what appears to be a conflict between
> what hiring people (those who aren't tech writers themselves) think makes a
> good technical writer and what technical writers think make a good tech
> writer. (I know that was a lousy sentence.)
>
> If I were to name the skills that I think make a good tech writer, the
> tools that he or she knows would be towards the bottom of the list.
> However, on my resume, guess what's on the top? A long list of tools. Why?
> Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. However, I do feel like recruiters are
> looking for tools. When comparing two candidates, it seems to me that a
> long list of tools is an easy (though inaccurate and lazy) way to quantify
> a writer's skills.
>
> What do you think, list. Is there a conflict out there? Am I adding to it,
> or just trying to market myself in a way that gets the job? Or am I just
> imagining things in my sometimes muddled brain?
FWIW, I don't think you're being a hypocrite, nor do I think you should
shoulder responsibility for how the marketplace works.
Fact is that HR people aren't in a position to know what each skill in their
company should include. They have to rely on their hiring managers. We could
blame the overworked hiring managers who resort to tools as a substitute for
taking the time to adequately define what skills they really need, but I'm not
sure that's the real problem either.
Take a writing position, for example. When I'm hiring, I definitely want
someone who can organize material, interview SMEs effectively, adequately
manipulate American English to communicate effectively, and ideally knows all
of the tools we're currently using. With the exception of the tool list,
everything else I've mentioned is sort of vague, particularly when it's reduced
to a 25 words or less job description. What will jump out at anyone, even me,
is the tool list. Naturally, that's what people will focus on. (I'm tempted to
add "especially as 'anyone can write'<g>." But *I* know better.)
When I'm interviewing and we get to the tools, I'm very upfront about those I
know and those I'm "eager to learn" or have only a "passing familiarity with."
What I do stress, which is also available to any discerning reader of my
resume, is that I've learned how to use a lot of tools, and I'm not concerned
about learning any new tools. I market myself as one who can produce quality
results in a timely fashion as a TW, and one who can learn--the principle skill
I believe any good writer possesses--what he doesn't know.
When it comes to getting a job, it's all marketing.
