What are you trying to say in this article? That the resume writer doesn't have IT experience or that that he doesn't know how to express it? This is a typical user-response to an IT catch-22:
No matter how the author (resume writer) tries to address the problem, the variety of the audience, from non-technically-interested mangement to non-educated employees, nitpick the words. If we use technical words and ideas to automate and streamline, the response is: it's "too simplistic" (because they don't understand the context). If we try to describe the detail, our design "is too complex". If we try to implement user simplicity, 'it's too expensive'.
Perhaps SCRUM was a fresh approach to *his* former company. Or perhaps you are exactly correct in this example and didn't adequately communicate that.
Who will be *filtering* his resume, by the way? An IT expert who is hiring another IT expert, or an HR person with minimal IT experience and simplistic hiring directives (from the non-technical CEO)?
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I suspect the filtering will be done, if not at the C-level, at least in one of the corner offices.
Most of the filtering seems to being done at the lowest level, by people who never had a clue about the "IT" field. They have been given a very few buzz-words that they do not understand, and, of course, they've never seen the many other buzz-words, which may or may not be equivalent.
These days the vast majority of resumes never rise to the level of the hiring manager's HR contact, let alone to the actual hiring manager. The low-level front-line people see their primary job as getting resumes they can mindlessly stuff through the shredd, er, uh, parser to the data-base of the "candidate management system".
The same applies, of course, to the resumes which are redirected to the firm's immigration attorneys or to a "staffing agency". Even in better times, it was not all that rare for even the experienced head of an "IT" employment agency to be clueless about most of the terms in use in the many different niches of the field (and the trickier, broader knowledge of equivalents and more generic terms as well as terms which had significantly different meanings). (I'm thinking Robert Half-W*t, in particular, but, based on his outfits' columns and materials, he's a knowledgeable, conscientious genius compared to the current bunch.)
Today, you'd have better odds of getting appropriate work in line with your knowledge, skills, and experience in a STEM field by going through a cook in the company cafeteria or the janitor, even if neither of them understands or speaks American English, simply because, having promised them an appropriate bonus for brokering the deal, they'd be far more conscientious than the vast majority of today's HR clones.
These days the vast majority of resumes never rise to the level of the hiring manager's HR contact, let alone to the actual hiring manager. The low-level front-line people see their primary job as getting resumes they can mindlessly stuff through the shredd, er, uh, parser to the data-base of the "candidate management system".
The same applies, of course, to the resumes which are redirected to the firm's immigration attorneys or to a "staffing agency". Even in better times, it was not all that rare for even the experienced head of an "IT" employment agency to be clueless about most of the terms in use in the many different niches of the field (and the trickier, broader knowledge of equivalents and more generic terms as well as terms which had significantly different meanings). (I'm thinking Robert Half-W*t, in particular, but, based on his outfits' columns and materials, he's a knowledgeable, conscientious genius compared to the current bunch.)
Today, you'd have better odds of getting appropriate work in line with your knowledge, skills, and experience in a STEM field by going through a cook in the company cafeteria or the janitor, even if neither of them understands or speaks American English, simply because, having promised them an appropriate bonus for brokering the deal, they'd be far more conscientious than the vast majority of today's HR clones.
advertising for a "Director of ..." position, then allowing the worker bees in HR to perform the initial resume screening.
Let me rephrase that...I can't imagine any business with competent management advertising for a "Director of ..." position, then allowing the worker bees in HR to perform the initial resume screening.
Let me rephrase that...I can't imagine any business with competent management advertising for a "Director of ..." position, then allowing the worker bees in HR to perform the initial resume screening.
Yes, even "Directors". Happens all the time.
Even CEO's (including university presidents and provosts and chancellors) now that so many are using "consulting services" to recruit.
It wouldn't matter, now, whether it was an HR "worker bee" or the head of HR, or the ones with all of the certifications. The incompetency fad has taken over the whole field.
I can't think of many businesses, these days, with competent management. Period.
Apple is about it, maybe John Huntsman's chemical company, though I'm not so sure.
Certainly not HP, Google, FB, Yahoo!, WM, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Grumman, GE, Bank of India, Andersen/Accenture, McKinsey, Ceridian, Vignette, Siemens, SAP, Oracle/Sun with the nutty things they've been doing and advising other executives to do, e.g. abandoning core competency, massive investment in privacy violation schemes, recruiting people based on criteria other than being able and willing to do the job for which we're recruiting each one, producing cheap trash instead of maximizing the quality/price ratio...
Even old stalwarts like P&G have been very flakey over the last decade.
ill-Begotten Montrosities execs, since at least the mid-1930s, were always working evil schemes.
That would be a great column -- 2 lists: honest executives, and competent executives, and then back each item up with a list of positives and negatives.
Even CEO's (including university presidents and provosts and chancellors) now that so many are using "consulting services" to recruit.
It wouldn't matter, now, whether it was an HR "worker bee" or the head of HR, or the ones with all of the certifications. The incompetency fad has taken over the whole field.
I can't think of many businesses, these days, with competent management. Period.
Apple is about it, maybe John Huntsman's chemical company, though I'm not so sure.
Certainly not HP, Google, FB, Yahoo!, WM, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Grumman, GE, Bank of India, Andersen/Accenture, McKinsey, Ceridian, Vignette, Siemens, SAP, Oracle/Sun with the nutty things they've been doing and advising other executives to do, e.g. abandoning core competency, massive investment in privacy violation schemes, recruiting people based on criteria other than being able and willing to do the job for which we're recruiting each one, producing cheap trash instead of maximizing the quality/price ratio...
Even old stalwarts like P&G have been very flakey over the last decade.
ill-Begotten Montrosities execs, since at least the mid-1930s, were always working evil schemes.
That would be a great column -- 2 lists: honest executives, and competent executives, and then back each item up with a list of positives and negatives.
I'm actually saying both. This resume writer didn't understand IT and was inclined to read or learn more.
The truth of his guy's story was that he worked for an American car manufacturer. It's sad to note that Toyota has successfully used SCRUM for years, while it was supposedly a new approach to this American manufacturer. I would have had a discussion with the client as to whether mentioning SCRUM provided any value.
The truth of his guy's story was that he worked for an American car manufacturer. It's sad to note that Toyota has successfully used SCRUM for years, while it was supposedly a new approach to this American manufacturer. I would have had a discussion with the client as to whether mentioning SCRUM provided any value.
gee, maybe i missed that course at Harvard....couldn't find any "IT resume writing certification courses anywhere...really???
There aren't any in-depth courses for learning how to write IT resumes. Common sense, good communication skills, board knowledge of IT, and great resources are required.
An IT Director wrote that? I wouldn't hire an intern with such poor communication skills. Also the description of what he was doing seems very basic for such a high powered title. I was doing similar level things when only 3 years out of university. I am guessing this 'IT Director' graduated in Mumbai?
It was "written for an IT Director", not by.
It was written by a certified resume writer who doesn't know anything about IT.
I agree, that is another very good point. This guy was an IT Director in a large company so higher level achievements should have been included. The resume writer added this on the first page as a major achievement. I was simply working with the information I had.
What a waste of time. This whole article was bunk.
It was poorly written and contained little to no useable information. Weak when you consider it was written by someone who does exactly this for a living.
It was poorly written and contained little to no useable information. Weak when you consider it was written by someone who does exactly this for a living.
To be successful, SCRUM requires daily meetings (typically 15 minutes.) It's a very focused use of time and without this connection the self-directed teams would quickly get off track.
I understand the meetings are part of the process/method; I have simply seen too many well intentioned daily meetings soon become more of a hindrance than a help; perhaps the leader was the problem, not the method.
The leader is the problem, not the method.
It's for the position of an IT manager. The person reading the resume will be HR, possibly the person being replaced, and other managers.
If it was for an IT pleb, then it would be read by the IT manager and technical content would count more.
So I agree that technical content should be tuned way down, and the focus is on achievements. More importantly, the focus is on achievements for the business, not technical achievements.
To me the key points this guy wants to get across in the first paragraph is that he has experience with coordinating distributed teams, implementing scrum (because this is likely to be one of the few buzz words on the HR wish list), and has worked in a large organisation (name drop).
Buried down on the second or third page in some list of technical experience would be the list of technologies. The heading "technical experience" should be enough for the reader to glaze over it and think "yes, he has experience".
The purpose of a resume is to get past stage one and into an actual meeting. So an easy to read page one, with feel good statements is the way to go.
Except if you know exactly what you are going for and the ad listed the technical requirements being sought. Then you drop the buzz words onto page one to make it easier for the technical illiterate HR person to tick the boxes on their sheet.
And back to the original topic, I hate the resumes where someone has dropped every technology they could find onto their resume to impress the reader. A technically competent resume writer would spot this for what it is and cut it down to a more realistic list of achievements. Or burn it.
If it was for an IT pleb, then it would be read by the IT manager and technical content would count more.
So I agree that technical content should be tuned way down, and the focus is on achievements. More importantly, the focus is on achievements for the business, not technical achievements.
To me the key points this guy wants to get across in the first paragraph is that he has experience with coordinating distributed teams, implementing scrum (because this is likely to be one of the few buzz words on the HR wish list), and has worked in a large organisation (name drop).
Buried down on the second or third page in some list of technical experience would be the list of technologies. The heading "technical experience" should be enough for the reader to glaze over it and think "yes, he has experience".
The purpose of a resume is to get past stage one and into an actual meeting. So an easy to read page one, with feel good statements is the way to go.
Except if you know exactly what you are going for and the ad listed the technical requirements being sought. Then you drop the buzz words onto page one to make it easier for the technical illiterate HR person to tick the boxes on their sheet.
And back to the original topic, I hate the resumes where someone has dropped every technology they could find onto their resume to impress the reader. A technically competent resume writer would spot this for what it is and cut it down to a more realistic list of achievements. Or burn it.
It's to get past the word search before anyone does read it. In my experience they don't any way.
If they were I wouldn't get offered junior dev roles, have my JavaScript skills confused with my non-existent Java ones, or get offered the chnace to maintain military vehicles in Syria, or...
Your stage one is in fact stage two, may be even three...
If they were I wouldn't get offered junior dev roles, have my JavaScript skills confused with my non-existent Java ones, or get offered the chnace to maintain military vehicles in Syria, or...
Your stage one is in fact stage two, may be even three...
It's not possible to connect everything an IT professional has done to business value. I've seen people make broad reaches to connect their achievement with the value it provided the business. This makes the statement artificial and disjointed.
What is wrong with describing how the achievement helped the technical team or environment? Who came up with the idea that everything has to directly benefit the business?
What is wrong with describing how the achievement helped the technical team or environment? Who came up with the idea that everything has to directly benefit the business?
It's for the position of IT Director.
When I was younger (oh so much younger than today) I had the technically bloated, list every skill under the sun, I am desperate resume. But after having my time wasted (and wasting others time) going in for interviews that I wasn't particularly skilled or interested in, I cut my resume back to what I wanted to do.
But then I was taught the next extension to that, you write your resume for the role that you want. So I have my manager resume, consultant resume, and engineer resume.
But if you do want to pass the key word search, then drop them into page 3 on the resume. No-one will read it, but it will be found.
As for not being able to "connect everything an IT professional has done to business value", that just highlights why IT professionals aren't sales professionals. If providing the infrastructure that allows a business to reliably and efficiently operate isn't of business value, then not much is.
Google even acknowledges that allowing their employees spare time to do whatever is potentially beneficial to the company.
Many companies acknowledge that a gym or basketball court improves the business.
So business value could be a little vague, but it really is just a matter of making the things we do matter to the people making the decisions.
Having said that, I can't work out why some companies implement certain systems (oh, the temptation to name names). So Jennifer may be right - there are some monumental stuff ups that just shouldn't go on a resume.
When I was younger (oh so much younger than today) I had the technically bloated, list every skill under the sun, I am desperate resume. But after having my time wasted (and wasting others time) going in for interviews that I wasn't particularly skilled or interested in, I cut my resume back to what I wanted to do.
But then I was taught the next extension to that, you write your resume for the role that you want. So I have my manager resume, consultant resume, and engineer resume.
But if you do want to pass the key word search, then drop them into page 3 on the resume. No-one will read it, but it will be found.
As for not being able to "connect everything an IT professional has done to business value", that just highlights why IT professionals aren't sales professionals. If providing the infrastructure that allows a business to reliably and efficiently operate isn't of business value, then not much is.
Google even acknowledges that allowing their employees spare time to do whatever is potentially beneficial to the company.
Many companies acknowledge that a gym or basketball court improves the business.
So business value could be a little vague, but it really is just a matter of making the things we do matter to the people making the decisions.
Having said that, I can't work out why some companies implement certain systems (oh, the temptation to name names). So Jennifer may be right - there are some monumental stuff ups that just shouldn't go on a resume.
You know those fools who pay us money to play around with interesting tech. It's pretty unreasonable of them admittledly, but they may, I say may just have a point.
When HR relies on Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) to select applicants, they become an order-taking service that can be easily replaced. For HR, it???s comforting to use ATS because you can easily demonstrate that the resumes contain, at least, the key words and phrases. It???s hard for the business to know that a great candidate was overlooked because HR didn???t do its job.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
