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:Outside interests on resumes, interviews From:"M. Hunter-Kilmer" <mhunterk -at- BNA -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 18 May 1998 11:26:14 -0500
Lisa Comeau <COMEAUL -at- CSA -dot- CA> wrote:
> I know of at least 5 companies that throw away resumes that don't
> show any outside interests. (Dumb? Sure=21 You can throw away the
> best candidate because they don't mention their love of lawn
> bowling, but some places work that way...)
> That's why research into the organization and their hiring practices
> can really help you.
I see your point, but how on earth could you research to that degree
unless you had a friend on the inside of the company?
Janice Gelb <janiceg -at- MARVIN -dot- ENG -dot- SUN -dot- COM> wrote:
> Judging from the messages on this issue, I guess I'm the only person
> who thinks these don't belong on a resume and could easily backfire.
> True that if you and the interviewer have something in common it
> makes the interview more cosy. But what if the interviewer thinks
> that your outside interests are a spectacularly stupid way to spend
> time? Or they push some ideological button? My preference would be
> to stick to business interests and leave the social aspect to after
> you get the job and are getting to know your co-workers.
Sometimes, of course, one combines one's interests -- by writing
articles for an association newsletter, for instance. Janice (and
others), I agree that you shouldn't mention anything that could turn
an interviewer against you, but you should definitely mention outside
activities that have a bearing on the job for which you're applying.
In the case I mentioned above, I'd say that I'd written articles for a
national organization's newsletter. I wouldn't say what the
organization was unless I was applying for a job in a company that I
felt would be sympathetic.
Barry Kieffer <barry -dot- kieffer -at- EXGATE -dot- TEK -dot- COM> wrote:
> I am a firm believer in getting a few employees together and taking
> the interviewee to lunch.
> During the hour-and-a-half lunch, you can learn a lot about each
> The person may not look that good on paper, and interview really
> nervously. But during lunch you and your group of employees find
> out that this person is sincere, and fun to be around. You just
> might take the chance and hire this person (on a hunch).
> This person may look great on paper, and interview good. During
> lunch the person starts talking like a raciest/sexist/militant/nut
> case. Tell me, do you really want this person around all day long?
Yeah, you can learn a lot, but maybe not enough and maybe the wrong
stuff. For example, you can take my husband out to lunch, and he'll
give a terrible impression. He's very introverted and shy. He'd be
terrible in an office. But he can write rings around lots of people,
and he could do beautifully as a freelance writer of occasional pieces
if you'd let him do it outside the office.
I know a guy on our help desk who is amazingly opinionated and
offensive to just about everybody. Dunno if he's a racist, but he's a
sexist and has all kinds of ideas I find really nuts. He'd lunch
really badly. But his technical knowledge is superb and he's terrific
at providing on-telephone support.
It just depends on what you want, I guess.
Anyway, why would you even bother to interview somebody who doesn't
look good on paper?
mhunterk -at- bna -dot- com