Alvin has been involved in a lot of different engineering projects throughout his career. His original résumé mentioned quite a few of them in various levels of detail across four pages. The bulk of the detail captured his involvement with international projects that happened earlier in his career.

More recently, Alvin has been in consulting roles and wants to continue along those same lines. Reverse chronology is definitely in play…infinite chronology is not. 

In essence, he’s saying “I’ve done a lot of stuff all over the world, and because of that I have a lot to offer a stateside company who needs someone who knows how to walk that line between hands-on project management and strategic consulting.” 

The nature of project work gives the writer two distinct considerations to navigate:

Redundant types of assignments can be implied to the client’s advantage. Simply provide enough content for the reader to think through…then stop. As if to say “And I did similar work with this company and with this company and with this company.” The power lies in what you don’t say.

In Alvin’s case, this decision was pretty simple. If you want the reader to focus on “2015 to Present” or whatever time frame you choose, then the supporting material — or in this case, the lack thereof — needs to reflect that. You can help the reader focus on RIGHT NOW by taking away the kind of job-by-job analysis that comes with traditional handling of the reverse-chronological format.

Projects are researchable. You can go into detail about each one if you want to, or you can even provide a link on the page that allows the reader to opt for any deep-dive background information. But each one of the Notable Projects listed is a Google-able entity, with details that would let the reader know everything they wanted to know about its size and scope.

His project list spans a wide range of companies and countries. Is it essential for the reader to know his job title and the year he worked on each of them? Perhaps at some point, those details will become more relevant. But to do the kind of work he wants to do now, and to present all that in an easily digestible form without getting lost in the details…the answer is “no”.

A client who walks in the door with pride, experience, a solid reputation, and pages and pages of source information is often shocked by taking this kind of approach. I get that. It doesn’t have to be done my way to be effective. 

But I think where we sometimes go astray is when we assume that a second or even third page — by sheer volume alone — will carry the value we hope to convey. Given the shrinking nature of an average reader’s attention span, that can be a dangerous assumption to make.

Can implied value be equal to or greater than value that is overtly stated? Co-creating value in the mind of a résumé reader is a collaborative mental process, facilitated by a written process, that relies on a delicate balance between the known and the unknown. 

Keep in mind that, in this case, the decision to go with a one-page format was NOT pre-meditated. The goal was to showcase the most recent 10-year period, and then ask “Does the remaining content support or distract from seeing the client as a solution to the reader’s problem?” 

If I really wanted to drive that message home, would saying it louder help? If you believe it would, keep writing. If you believe the volume is sufficient, stop. Trust the process. Based on the quality of the content you present — as opposed to the amount of content you choose NOT to present — did you get the volume right?

“ré•su•mé (rézumei, rezuméi) n. a summary. A curriculum vitae [F.]”

 — New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language

résumé n. a powerful, nearly magical document endowed with special powers that got someone else a job but is governed by arcane rules about which everyone has different opinions.

—The lexicon of the layman, too many job posting websites,

and an army of uninformed résumé writers

résumé n. a document offering easily grasped value…to employers, clients, professional résumé writers, career coaches, and our industry.

—The careers professional’s lexicon

The first definition seems right to the harried lexicographer who must sort 230,000 words. The second seems right to most job seekers and many potential clients. This is becoming even more true with the advent of AI. The last should be right to professional résumé writers—once they reflect on the precise, powerful roles we should demand of every résumé we write.

I’ll start by describing the stress affecting hiring decision makers. Then I’ll lay out three roles you can use to judge if your next draft résumé is good enough for the client to see. Last, I’ll show you how to use our definition to build your practice.

Context counts: why the interviewer is more nervous than our clients:

A harried executive is shorthanded; he needs another sales representative. His boss’ office is his first stop. There he must get his boss’ permission to spend company money and risk bringing on a new person. He is appealing to the person who writes his performance review. There’s only one argument our potential hiring manager can muster: the new employee must make the company more money than it costs to find, hire, and keep him. 

It’s quite a gamble. In a recent LinkedIn discussion, the “best answer” to the question “is it still hard to find good help?” included these words: “Yes.… We’re still having a problem finding highly qualified candidates that are not currently employed or who are seeking to make a career move,” wrote an IT recruiter. 

Our harried executive has seen people who aren’t good on the job. He knows someone, just like him, chose those deadbeats as the best of a field of eligibles. If others can make that mistake, so can our hiring manager.

When someone hires the wrong person, he does more than break the ROI promise he made to his boss; he lets down his entire company. 

Nevertheless, the work must be done. So he turns to his best employee. He explains how the new guy needs help and asks his top performer if she will assist. She probably will…for a little while. After all, she’s already overworked (that’s why they hired the new guy). Now her boss wants her to continue to do her work while also doing part of the new guy’s work, all without getting part of the new guy’s salary. If that keeps up, the company suffers three body blows.

The top performer, now disgruntled, goes to the competition with all the proprietary information and customer databases. (Body blow one.) Then she recruits her friends, also valued employees. (Body blow two.) Meanwhile, Mr. Incompetent has been fired, thus costing the company money they invested his training. (Body blow three.)

To put yet more hyperactive butterflies in the interviewer’s stomach, he knows he isn’t trained for the task. It’s surrounded by folklore, comical if it weren’t so corrosive. For example, precisely why did the following question turn up on a job site’s top ten list: “If you were an animal, what kind of an animal would you be?”

If the résumé you write is the first to ease the employers’ burden, your client gets job offers. Let’s make it as easy for you as you made it for the employer.

Three roles every résumé must fill:

A document that lets the hiring decision maker to deliver on the promise he made to his boss and his entire company. Each résumé must exceed hiring decision makers’ expectations, proving your client understands the target company’s key problems and has a track record of success transferable to the new organization. In short, organizations must grasp how your client plans to make them more money than it costs to bring him or her on board. The previous sentence should be read again.

“Summaries of Qualifications” rarely meet that standard. (“An Obituary for the Summary of Qualifications,” The Spotlight, August 2023, pp. 9+) They are usually a collection of buzzwords or traits that unintentionally describe mediocrity. (Would anybody hire anybody who isn’t a “top-notch problem solver?”) Responsibilities, too, have little place in the résumé. (“Where Quality Resides,” The Spotlight, May 2023, pp. 8+) If the reader recognizes the list of responsibilities, she still has no idea how well the applicant performed. If the reader doesn’t recognize the responsibilities, she may draw the wrong conclusion: our client isn’t qualified.

Why not let organizations see how our client intends to act as the best in his field? Since invitations go to individuals, why not include the company’s name in that pledge? Here’s an example:

What I offer Arista as your newest HR Manager

• A proven leader whose teams get cost-saving results that last,
• An expert at turning compliance requirements into opportunities that build production and save money,
• A respected professional who designs and administers affirmative action and diversity programs that contribute to corporate success, and
• A capable project manager who delivers results on time and on, or under, cost estimates.

Yes, I know all about the fixation of “key words” and ATS. We all also know that the success rate for posting a résumé on line is small. So let’s cover both bases.

Write your ATS résumé just as you always do. Then offer the advanced résumé described below. It and the cover letter go directly to the actual hiring decision maker (who will rarely be HR). In the cover letter, tell the reader your client has already applied on line. But your client is writing because he knows the reader has the biggest stake in the outcome. Thanks to mail merge, you don’t have to “tailor” each copy of the advanced résumé or cover letter.  Of course, you charge for both versions. 

In the end, it’s transferable performance that counts. The Challenge-Action-Response-Transferability model is very well known. But why not make the value stand out? Here’s a typical example:

  Transforming Compliance into Productivity   

Payoffs: When the leader of a $20B organization asked me to streamline the complex ISO 9001 audit program, I improved the policy so all 16 offices would respond to SMEs’ suggestions. Got every player training and certifications they needed. Delivered two months early and $100K under budget. My approach now the corporate standard. Saved $600K in manpower costs.

As templates for outstanding interviews, our résumés must “sound” like our clients, so they look as good on paper as they do in person. And we have to entice the interviewer to ask questions our clients want them to ask. Therefore, our documents should pass these tests:

• Did we, inadvertently, give our client too much or too little credit for what they’ve done? You and the client must stand behind the integrity of what you write.
• Did we capture all the client’s relevant success stories? Our client deserves credit for all she does. Showing what the client did isn’t good enough. We must also tell how the client performed in ways the target company values. 
• Does the philosophy and word choice sound like our client? The words we use must show our client’s passion and thought process clearly. If we used jargon, did we do so correctly?

As levers to negotiate salary, benefits, perks, bonuses, and severance, what we write should protect our client from a lowball salary offer. When we quantify results, particularly revenue made or dollars saved, the interviewer stops thinking of our client as a cost and sees him as a good investment. 

If the applicant saves the company a single turnover, if he can rescue one $25K contract, no well-run company will quibble over a $5K gap between what they planned to offer and what your client needs to reflect the return on investment he delivers.

Now you have three solid criteria to judge a résumé before you start to write. Use them in your initial consultation with potential clients. Do they understand what it takes to be the best? Does their track record reflect that understanding? Are they thinking like the next employer? If you sense the answer is “no” to any of these questions, you may not want to take on this job seeker. No one can—and no professional should—try to portray a lack of performance as a benefit.

Use the same criteria to help build your brand. Once you demystify the process, you’ll attract better clients and find it easier to work with them. Also, your in-depth knowledge will reflect well on our industry. It also will make this key point: AI can only go so far in helping people win great jobs. 

When your documents meet their required roles, clients win the jobs, companies win great employees, you win more money, and our industry wins the stature it has always deserved.

I am a bit fuzzy about the most important project I ever worked in my previous career—except it shapes the way I run my practice even today. I remember the project directly affected national security, was classified above Top Secret, and would be read by people whose names I saw regularly on the front page of the Washington Post. I’ll tell you what I learned because I hope it will help you run your practice and manage your life a little better.

Just like that first email from your last client, my project came at a very busy time. And, just like your last client, the general officer who asked for my help had a large personal stake in the outcome. And perhaps like your last client, I had never done precisely this kind of project before. And perhaps just like you, I signed up enthusiastically and agreed to a deadline I should have thought about twice.

When it was all done, my mentor took me aside. “Next time,” he said, “try using this.” He handed me his business card. Puzzled, I just stared at him. “Turn it over,” he said.

There, on the back of the card, was a single column of three boxes. This is what it looked like:

For a moment, I didn’t get it. Then it became very clear: If you want it good and fast, it won’t be cheap; if you want it cheap and fast, it won’t be good. You get the idea. Now I want you and your clients to get the idea too by adapting the model that has served me so well. 

If I had the same thing on the back of my business card, I would print it with the word “Good” already checked. And I would say: “Check any one of the remaining two boxes.” Good is not negotiable. 

I know you’re tempted sometimes to take on a project you know you shouldn’t, but you need a little extra money. That extra money costs way too much. Whatever you write may have your client’s name at the top, but it is your work. It will always help define your brand. Because your work is excellent, those in the know will want to hire you. 

But when you charge low rates, you’re not making enough to grow your business. Because your prices are low, those who don’t know you may go elsewhere; they think they get what they pay for. Those who have little to offer will seek you out, but you can’t do much to help them. And they may blame you for their failures.

Consider the résumé writer (usually not a member of a professional organization) who churns out “cookie cutter” résumés at very low cost. they charge less because his labor is less. 

But his brand is defined for him—by his clients (whose “cookie cutter” résumés keep them from the best jobs) and by perspective employers (who recognize hackneyed writing when they see it). His brand is: cheap. They are the Spirit Airlines of résumé writers. 

It only gets worse. Others in our industry would never refer a client to him. Because they have no new ideas, they never contribute to the literature, you never see them at professional conferences. If their work didn’t reflect so poorly on our industry, they would be irrelevant. That is why greatness in what you do is never negotiable.

While “cheap” isn’t something we want to be associated with either, it does remind us about levels of investment we set and the value we deliver. There are two important ideas referenced in that previous sentence.

First, I never refer to “price.” I like neither the denotation nor the connotation. Webster’s definition: “…that which must be done, sacrificed, suffered, etc. in return for something…a price on someone’s head…to have one’s price, to be willing to be bribed if the bribe is big enough.” 

Also, prices are associated with commodities. Because commodities are always identical, those who sell them usually compete on price. No matter where you buy, that refrigerator you’re thinking about will always be precisely the same thing.

No one—not career professionals, not job seekers, not recruiters—can afford a “one-size-fits-nobody” résumé, bio, or LinkedIn profile.

“Invest,” on the other hand, is much closer to the mark: “to expect a yield, profit or income.” Even the secondary meaning is positive, “to confer an office or rank upon.” In short, our clients should make or save more money than it costs to engage us. That’s a grand thing for us to believe. But it counts for nothing if our clients don’t believe it.

We want our clients to see a return on their investment. The greater the investment, the greater the likelihood of a big return. That reminds us to tailor the products and services we offer to the level of investment our clients can make. And we’re talking about more than money. 

Consider two clients. Both are senior. Both have great track records. Both need about the same services. One is very busily employed; the other is between jobs. Should the levels of investment—can the levels of investment—be the same?

My unemployed client can make a much greater investment in time. That means I have to do less work. His level of investment is appropriately lower. On the other hand, my working client’s days are not her own. I must do more of the work. Her investment is correspondingly higher. The same reasoning is behind all the services we offer.

People pay me more when I prepare Federal applications. Why? Because Federal applications are arduous. Time is money. 

Even when there are no forms, the difficulty of the task raises the amount I charge. Those who have written Executive Core Qualifications as part of a Senior Executive Service application know exactly what I mean. The writing standards are very high indeed. Quality costs money.

Time is money in another way as well. That’s where “fast” comes in. You can usually spot potential clients who want to know, right up front, how much you charge for a résumé. What they probably want is your price for doing a résumé overnight or over the weekend. 

If they could see the back of your “improved” business card, the only word that would blare out at them is “FAST.” If you agree to this arrangement, you both paid too high a price. 

Naturally, you charged the client more for night or weekend work. And you incurred the cost of time away from your family and the extra fatigue that comes from working two weeks straight. We avoid such waste by remembering the first standard: “Good.”

Good defeats most arbitrarily imposed deadlines. Your client may think he needs a résumé right now, but what he really wants is a job. Guide him to see the difference in terms that serve you, your client and his next boss. Let’s listen in:

Caller: “How much do you charge for a résumé? I need mine updated right away.”

Coach: “Are you trying to meet a very tight deadline? I ask because I like my clients to help set the level of investment, so they get top value.”

Caller: “Yes, they said they needed a résumé by tomorrow morning.”

Coach: “I can see the pressure they’ve put you under. Let’s see how we can help them and still get the best value for you. People who want your résumé need your help to fill a job right away. Someone thinks you are a good candidate. He’s putting his credibility on the line when he forwards your résumé. Does that make sense?”

Caller: “I think so. But if I don’t get the résumé to them by COB tomorrow, I may not get the job.”

Coach: “So let’s offer that person an alternative. Tell him you understand his problem. And your first thought was to give him the résumé you have now. But you want him to get the credit for helping hire the right person. So, if he can trade a little time for a lot of quality, wouldn’t he prefer a document tailored right to his company’s needs? 

Rather than being dismissed for not meeting some arbitrary deadline, I think you’ll be seen as ready to do something extra to fill the company’s needs. There are very few jobs that can’t go unfilled for a few days.” 

I have lost a few sales with that approach. What if the caller persists in his unreasonable deadline? You could update his résumé, but you need information from him after normal business hours today. Of course, you want to be sure your client has time to review the draft. Since the company wants the résumé in the morning, that means the client must work with you late today and before normal business hours tomorrow to complete the review. It’s going to be a long night for him. 

However, it will be an even longer night for you. You must give your undivided attention to this project. Specifically, you may work until midnight and then come in early. All these things you are happy to do, but there is an express charge.

How much should the express charge be? Large enough to meet your needs. I hate working weekends or through the night. So I kept doubling the express charge until I knew no one could afford it. Today, a client would have to pay me an additional $1,000 to work under those conditions. 

The reason I know that is a ridiculous amount is simple: I haven’t worked through the night or over a weekend in more than five years! And if I ever get a client who will pay $1,000 above the normal investment, I will do two things. First, I will admit my plan failed. Second, I will raise the express charge to $2,000!

It is up to us to maximize our efficiency. Simply put, we must write truly exceptional job search documents quickly. We can speed up our writing in several ways.

Put Word to work. It’s amazing how much time you save when you exploit automated templates, AutoText and AutoCorrect, high speed desktop search engines, unattended backups and security scans. If any of those terms are new to you, pick just one and master it. 

Proofing slow you down? Word can read what you wrote aloud. That helps me find the typos I miss if I am just scanning the file.

Each time you use a software trick, you save only a few seconds. Each time you use several software tricks, you are saving a minute or more. How many documents do you produce in a year? If your answer is around 160, then you might save 240 minutes each year. That’s four hours of your time!

Put your self-discipline to work. Because time management fills many books, I won’t dwell on it. But I offer this suggestion: treat yourself as you would your best client. When you commit to writing anything, commit to scheduling yourself uninterrupted time to complete the task. You’ll be amazed at what a lack of distractions can do for you. Promising yourself time to write the documents means you can promise your client a fixed review date, something that gives her peace of mind.

Put your professional development to work. You’re already doing some of that now as you read this issue of The Spotlight. But I’m going to suggest a better approach. Decide which skills you need to master, then pick just one and follow through. 

Do you want to expand your coaching skills, then consider the CPCC coaching program like the one offered by Diane Hudson. Do you want to tap into the huge veteran market? Sign up for the CVCS certification, the first and only one of its kind in the nation. 

But there is another, irreplaceable opportunity. Thrive!2025 is 208 days away. Check https://www.thrive.show/ regularly to learn which topics will be covered. One or more are bound to fit your needs. 

I know. April 27 seems a long way into the future. But it takes time and effort to get the most from attending. 

If you master just one skill, your practice will continue to grow and prosper.

My mentor’s “magic business card” was something new. It introduced me to the difference between value and features. 

Our brands must be promises of value, never a collection of features. That value rests on greatness. What remains is how quickly and at what level of investment we’ll deliver that greatness. When we do that well, our clients win…and so do we.

A June 2024 research article in Science Advances presents another argument for writing simpler and more effective content. The research focused on how readers engaged with news headlines from the Washington Post and Upworthy, a storytelling website. Through a series of independent projects, they reached this conclusion:

“In both lab-controlled experiments and real-world trials, headlines that used common words with fewer syllables attracted more reader engagement. More analytic and complex headlines got fewer clicks, and some readers didn’t even remember them just minutes after seeing them.”

What are the implications for résumé writers?

For one, it is a reminder that résumé reading is often done in a competitive online environment where people are “economical with their attention.” No surprise there. But perhaps more importantly, the study revealed a gap between writers and readers, a “disconnect between what journalists think audiences will read and what they actually do.”

I believe that same gap is abundant across our industry. It applies to my work, your work, and anyone else who uses the written word to address a decision-making audience. And it applies to more than just headlines.

Our Fundamentals team recently explored one of the ways this might creep into your own work. A common concept among résumé writers is to “match the language of the job description” because the ATS will use that language as the basis for scanning résumé content to identify qualified candidates.

We looked at a randomly selected job description that included this phrase: 

“Set strategy for data governance work streams to ensure integrity and quality of large data sets that inform business decisions and optimize operations, influencing 3rd party vendors and internal analytics partners to manage timelines and deliverables.”

It might be grammatically correct, but that sentence received a negative score on more than one readability tool. It is a collection of syllables not worthy of being copied and pasted as is. It SOUNDS very corporate, but that’s about it. If it’s important enough to be included, it’s important enough to be included more simply.

A simplified version of that phrase might look like this: 

“Create plans to ensure important data is correct and useful, enabling better business decisions and work efficiency. Partner with outside companies and internal teams to track progress and meet deadlines.”

That’s much better from a readability standpoint because it has fewer words and syllables, but it comes at a price. If you regurgitate what was originally written, theoretically you stand a better chance of satisfying the ATS gods…but readability is compromised. If you revise what was originally written, you risk that ATS alignment…but stand a better chance of connecting with a human reader. Now imagine making that decision 25-50 times within the same document. The potential upside is huge.

To anyone studying for the CPRW credential or looking to improve the way their work resonates with readers, I wholeheartedly support the conclusion that researchers have once again affirmed: “When all else is equal, and you are on the fence…simpler language is better.”

[HINT: CPRW test submissions are graded by certified WRITERS, not electronic tools or certified readers. Play your hand accordingly.]