Re: Recruiters: Is It Just Me?

[John Posada <john -at- TDANDW -dot- COM>]

Hi, William.

There is a difference between writing and formatting information to suit the
purpose of the use of the documentation and doing the same for the purpose of
satisfying the whim of the reader for no justifiable reason.

One of the reasons that we may be good at what we do is because we know, through
years of experience, what would work in a situation or for a product. That is
one of the skills that we are paid for. In the case of a resume, the product is
me.

One of the byproducts of experience is knowing when it is better to do something
different and when it is better to stick to your guns.

If I know that me, the product, is best documented through a chronological
resume, and someone, the agency, hasn't done the FEA of the product, decides
that their preference is to have a functional resume, then they need to listen
to my opinion that draw on that experience.

Put another way. You are writing a document for the purpose of installing and
upgrading a very technical UNIX type of product used by heads-down programmers
on command line, character-based terminals. However, someone in your
organization decides to have the documentation done in the style of a tri-fold
glossy, 4-color, pictures, slick, etc.  You've done the analysis and sat with
the user. Do you do it "his" way just because he wants it? Or do you do
everything in your power to persuade him that it is not appropriate?

An agency isn't automatically right in every situation.

On the other hand, and more toward the reason for my expressing the comment the
way I did, I've had very requests to change my resume (I've also worked with
several agency friends and have taken their guidance in the creation of my
existing resume anyway). However, the most recent case was someone who wanted me
to remove all reference to the fact that a portion of my experience was in
marketing, sales, and marcom, with their opinion that the client wouldn't like
me because of that experience.

In reality, that experience has had a great influence on how I write. If I had
removed it, the client would not have gotten an accurate picture of the product,
would have purchased the product, and found out rather quickly that they hadn't
gotten what they thought they had.

Also, there is a purely pragmatic reason for not having 12 versions of a resume
out there. I cannot keep track of them and who has what, and I don't want to be
in a situation where I'm interviewing for a position and we're both working from
different scripts. If I was interviewing someone and she happen to bring a copy
of a resume to the meeting and it was different that the one that had been
previously submitted, I would have the opinion in the back of my mind that there
was other information that I wasn't privy to, and that would have an impact on
my decision.  It's just easier for me and the extra effort wouldn't have a
matching benefit.

John Posada



William G Meisheid wrote:

> >What revision and change? I refuse to custom taylor a resume for a
> situation. The resume is what it is and if they don't like my style of
> resume, they wouldn't like my style of writing.
>
> You probably didn't mean to say it the way it came out, but tayloring a
> resume to the situation has very little to with the "style" of writing and
> more to do with layout and presentation for your audience. It was almost as
> if you said I don't take my reader into consideration when I write and
> layout something. That could not have been your intention.
>
> As a consumer of resumes I also judge people on their resume itself as well
> as what is in their resume and tayloring their resume to my needs shows me
> alot about their willingness to adjust to my needs. I also look their use of
> paragraph and character styles (I only take resumes in doc format). They are
> after all, technical writers, not just writers, which to me implies more
> than the expression alone.
>
> Just an opinion from the rim...
>
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=