Just a quick word to the wise this week. CV writing is difficult, now I’m not pretending to be an expert on the subject, and I am most certainly not the messiah of CV formatting etc. But there is one particular hint that all in sundry could benefit from. It is a mistake that people regardless of industry, qualification, experience or age have made time and time again. Changing the title given to a position that you have held on your resume.
Recruitment Consultants and HR managers worth their salt recognise, that particularly within a smaller organisational environment, a given job title might not cover the full scope of what you actually did within the course of a role. In another life I held an administrator position which included hands on first aid, culinary aspects, dance choreographic work, creating newsletter content and a whole lot more. Stating Administrator and just a timeframe would not have begun to cover the scope of that position.
So, what do you do when your job title means nothing? Or perhaps it is just that it does not accurately reflect what it is that you have been doing within the course of your role? Don’t be tempted as many are to change the job title to one you think more accurately portrays your input. Keep the title, it will make you look bad when we call a reference for clarification and they call you out on it. Instead write a brief description of what this position actually entailed. By all means feel free to write that even though your title may suggest this, in actual fact your responsibilities were more along these lines… This way you get to have your say without putting yourself in a vulnerable position. Win – win.
Doing this takes you out of the leagues of people who try to big up their experience by changing the title of a role given. If we call an ex-manager asking for a reference and tell them that you have said they effectively did their role for them, unless they are a truly humble person and this is in fact the case, all that will happen is this will rub them up the wrong way. And they will give you a bad reference as comeuppance. Congratulations, you look like an idiot!
Like a great wise man once said, “Honesty is the best policy.” Although if you have covered more than a title would suggest, do yourself a favour and add this, without the overindulgence.
Happy Job Hunting!
Its a tough one. Often in many of my roles – my title has been out grown within a few weeks as I lumped with more responsibility than you could poke a stick at.
Often the title does not change, as most companies don’t give a rats a, and your too busy to do anything about it.
I once was employed as a simple Technical support person and soon found myself managing all Marketing, Managing a national team of service technicians and being the sole international correspondent of all support matters.
My role was not changed as then this particular firm would have had to pay me more. But my manager openly admitted he was impressed with my performance in these areas.
If I were to put, “Service Technician…”
“…..Who ran the whole support structure for a firm with customers all over NZ” I doubt I would have landed any of my other roles.
I also have had graduates work under me who had done enough office administration to be fully fledged auditors. When I asked management to up their roles to what they were doing – response was simply “No, no point”.
Are you saying we should quit a firm if the role doesn’t match what we are doing? For the sake of Semantics?
Posted by Stewart Farr | January 23, 2013, 12:43 PMI’m suggesting that people don’t profess that they were a Project Manager when in fact they were a Project Co-ordinator and took over from the PM one day when they were sick.
I’m also saying that if you are being taken for a ride with regards to salary, which is often why a bigger title is not given to a role, that this is a discussion you need to have with your employer. And again something that should be reiterated to Recruiters or HR Managers within the course of a cover letter etc. People understand monetary constraints. They are not always so understanding of someone seemingly trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
If your actual position was at complete odds with your title, I would suggest stating a broad title of Various Positions, and going into details after this for the sake of foregoing a misleading title.
Posted by Tabitha Flack | January 23, 2013, 12:57 PMIf only it were that easy. Most of the time when you put a broad role – you get declined for interview with R.Agents.
While I sure you are a premium agent, many of your competitors are not. Key word searches are stable diet for many agents out there.
Most CV’s are in the bin before lunchtime – purely because of the Broad titles not matching the required job title.
Reading of CV’s is a mantle of brilliance for the applicant. It means you have lied, cheated and stolen your way to make your application sound exactly like the job prospectus.
I once copied and pasted the Job add into my application, got a call later from a rather excited agent (he was young and a bit green) stating he would love to talk to me. When I asked why, reply was computer told him I would be perfect match for his job.
I asked him to open my CV. Line went silent. I laughed, then he did when he realized what was going on.
I suspect many whom have had to ‘fudge’ a title or two have similar stories.
The difference between a project manager and a project co-ordinator is proven with a very simple test. Say you want to meet them for lunch, and they are to organize it.
Good project manager will organize everything – including sending you a map and confirming your arrival. Project co-ordinator will send you facebook event details.
I have often laughed at people who call themselves HR managers, and I ask them if the staff have talked to them recently or asked them to explain their career programs. Most don’t have a clue what HR is – and are simply Human Stock Takers.
Posted by Stewart Farr | January 23, 2013, 3:25 PMI think Stewart many candidates get mixed up when it comes to what recruitment agencies do. Recruitment agencies find people for jobs, not jobs for people. Sad but true.
And yes your next comment around there is no recruitment agency without the candidate is absolutely correct, however, in most countries around the world, the employer pays the fee, not the candidate.
So, the recruiter needs to get through a pile of CVs as quickly as they can. They don’t have time to mess around. If they don’t make the placements, they don’t achieve their budgets and they are out. It’s a cut-throat industry. If a cv doesn’t check the boxes, then it is on the no pile and unfortunately, that isn’t going to change.
Just my thoughts after being in recruitment for over 25 yrs.
Steve
Posted by inhouserecgroup | March 19, 2013, 11:03 PMI have worked with a few recruiters who go for quality over quantity. So something must be changing. I also notice quite a few people out there who don’t deal with agents anymore.
So perhaps not only are some agents changing, but the market is changing as well.
I still know that there are going to be a the quota sales people out there in every industry (my wife is a fantastic target achiever). That will never change. But cut throat industries are not perpetual. Eventually the red water dissipates, the last shark is left circling, and the school has gone elsewhere.
Price/Time wars eventually fall back down to what people actually need rather than want. In recruitment – that is the right people in the right places. Incorrectly placing candidates costs companies far more than salary and commission.
Posted by farrst | March 19, 2013, 11:33 PMFarrst, yes there are still consultants out there who go for quality over quantity. In some cases this will work, and those case are where a consultant is very focused on a certain niche/skill set/task. They become a “career manger” and really just move the holes around in a certain industry.
The global economic crisis (that we apparently had to have) was a catalyst for a lot of change in the recruitment industry. It forced many people out of the industry and many organisations were closed. Those who were left had no choice but to pay their way or be removed. It was a time that made the industry realise that they were carrying way too much “fat”, and probably being too “nice” to people who were not contributing by leaving them in place. A recruitment company doesn’t have a lot of places to hide for the under performer.
(see my recent post for a in-depth understanding of a recruitment company cost structure http://blog.inhouserecruitmentgroup.com/2013/03/26/operating-costs-of-a-recruitment-compan/)
So unfortunately, it is often the pressure of job security that is circling the recruiter that makes them chase the person paying the bill rather than then candidate.
Your comment about some people not using recruiters these days is valid. I suggest everyone use a recruiter as their last option. The problem is that the alternative requires work and unfortunately, many people are afraid of that word.
Once again, my thoughts only
Steve
Posted by inhouserecgroup | March 27, 2013, 4:48 PM