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:Re: Recruiters: Is It Just Me? From:Maurice King <benadam -at- CYBERDUDE -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:11:20 -0500
I've found recruiters to be just like any other group of people trying to earn a living: some are reliable, some are not, some are intelligent, some are jerks, etc.
What I find much more difficult to comprehend, however, are the recruiters and/or HR staff who clearly do not read a candidate's résumé or do not know how to read at all. Not long ago, I applied for a position, only to get back a reply stating that the company in question was only considering candidates with strong background in online Help and HTML design -- both of which are my specialty! This person couldn't have read my résumé beyond my name and address or the information would have jumped off the page.
Lately I received a rejection via e-mail stating that I lacked a particular required skill that was not obvious on my résumé. It seems to me that if a recruiter has taken the time to write a personal reply, that recruiter could also ask about the skill in question, because sometimes things do not appear within the scope of a résumé. A good example is one job for which I was a candidate that required project management experience. The client in question informed me that because I had never worked with Microsoft Project, I would not be a viable candidate. I was quick to inform that I had worked with Microsoft Project; however, for me, it was just a tool that I used for internal reporting, not for getting the work done. To mention MS Project on my résumé would have been like mentioning a mouse pad on my résumé; sure, I used it, but it wasn't a critical part of my work.
On the subject of what sort of résumé to present I have heard many conflicting concepts, and on this I'd like to hear some comments from others. I've been told that a functional résumé almost always rubber-stamps a candidate as a contract employee and that chronological résumés are necessary for staff positions. I have both on hand and have taken to submitting both to recruiters, because no matter how much I revise my résumé, there's always something that isn't obvious that should be. Because much of my experience was outside the U.S., I have been told by many that I have to give complete details of everything I did, including tools I used, because U.S. companies are not likely to know what I did based upon the company names; however, others have told me that the resultant résumé is unacceptably long. It leaves me wondering if I shouldn't just create a video file to send instead; maybe that way I'd manage to give over everything that was expected of me.
It is always important to make a good first impression, but when a résumé generates a long procedure of revisions and changes, it is much harder to leave such an impression. How is it possible to resolve this problem?