Go you, smonster!

My last resume revamp was supervised by the number 3 guy at that enormous foundation headed by that uber rich geek. Not that that makes him any smarter/more valuable as a commentator, but he sees more resumes than anyone can imagine.

His first comment was that I should have a list of core competencies right up front. THEN the academic stuff (which was a surprise to me) and then work experience with subheads that coordinate to the core competencies.

I actually love the way it came out and feel more confident with this document than any other paper representation of my experience.

For me, the competencies ended up looking like this:

CORE COMPETENCIES

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND COACHING

Fostering organizational success through understanding of interpersonal communication and motivation

• Board relations

• Executive coaching

• Group facilitation

• Personnel assets assessment

• Staff counseling

COMMUNICATIONS

Representing organizational interests in all media

• Chief spokesperson

• Message planning and implementation

• Training and event design and management

• Image building and media relations

MANAGEMENT, STRATEGIC PLANNING & ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Capitalizing on existing strengths and visioning for optimal individual and organizational performance

• Action planning

• Program implementation

• Hiring

• Visioning and consensus building

• Process redesign and course correction

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT & PROBLEM SOLVING

Leveraging strengths and implementing creative solutions

• Individual and group problem solving

• Mediation

• Staff development and motivation

• Real and sustainable resolution development

CAPACITY BUILDING

Strategic and operational guidance for human factors in the face of shifting resources and changing environments.

• Program development

• Project management

• Budget oversight

• Staff integration and team building,

• Technology, facilities and systems integration

With the core stuff right up front, then the reviewer can skip to the experience that is relevant to the position (and is more likely to so do, rather than slogging through a load of text) and can frame questions about desired skills without having to go to deep into the doc.

My adviser also suggested that anyone over 30 should have a full CV, rejecting the notion of a one, or even two page resume.

That was another surprise.

ETA: Another thing that makes total common sense, but no one had ever said to me before...do not, under any circumstances, include experiences/skills that you do not want to be asked to do.

one he was laid off from when everything went to shit, and he was let go from AIG because they suck.

Aims, how does the timing on these line up with Joe going back to school? I can't remember. If school can cover those periods, it might be worth thinking about whether to include them at all, particularly the last.

I totally agree. If there is a way to truthfully dis-include those 'opportunities', it might help.

The timing was he was laid off when everything went to shit in Feb '09. Went back to school in May of '09.

His first comment was that I should have a list of core competencies right up front

Huh. Guess I need to totally redo my resume. I do have a summary and objective up top.

Bacchanal ran out of cheese. That is astounding.

Being around B is tough. I'm unable to keep away from him, which may not be wise long term but is in some ways less stressful and more satisfying short term.

It seems reasonable to assume that March and April were 'prep time' for going back to school. Schedules needed to be redirected, resources gathered, etc.

When I was fired from the software developer, (what a story...all to the good actually) we agreed that we would say I left the position by mutual agreement in preparation for pursuing an advanced degree.

No one has ever questioned me on that.

Oh, smonster. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to manage your heart wrt B.

My adviser also suggested that anyone over 30 should have a full CV, rejecting the notion of a one, or even two page resume.

This depends on the market, I think. Because I've had recruiters trim my resume down. One page, no. But they're pretty adamant no one's reading past page 3.

I do have a summary and objective up top.

This adviser is not the be-all, of course, but he said that he was sick, beyond the speaking of it, of reading objective statements. He felt they were not 'brass tacks' enough and were sort of like answering the 'name a weakness' question with the fact that you are too much of a team player or push yourself too hard to meet the company's objectives.

He is pretty hardcore, so may not be as good a resource as the HR folks among us, but his approach really does focus on presenting a different structure/view that not only makes you stand out, but cuts through the protocol that has become cliched.

One page, no. But they're pretty adamant no one's reading past page 3.

Mine is 3 as well. Academia, journalism and upper-tier executive positions demand more. The rest of us? 3 is usually good...especially if you are rigorous with avoiding repetition.

eta: This is also why I was happy to include the competencies list because it feels to me like a table of contents that ensures the reader doesn't necessarily have to read the whole document. Or will spark the interest to do so if appropriate.