blueskyresumesblog

What Makes an Effective Reference Letter?

Thanks for the great questions that keep arriving in my in box. I enjoy reading them! One reader writes:

I've been reading your blog for a while now and always with the greatest pleasure, and now I have a question which might be of interest to you.

A great recruiter helped me to find my dream job, and now I'm writing a recommendation letter for him. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a sample letter for this profession or any other kind of advice, and thus take the liberty of addressing you. Are there any aspects of the recruiter's job that are of a particular importance? I can write a lot about this person's "personal-professional" qualities, like unprejudiced approach, timely responses, etc., but I want to write something of real value, something that other professionals in this area can appreciate too.

The key skill for a recruiter is the ability to make a sale. Recruiting is a sales job as much as anything - not only does a recruiter have to persuade a company to her, but she also has to persuade candidates to interview for vacant positions.

Therefore, if this reference letter is intended to help the recruiter either seek new employment, or advertise her services to potential clients, I would focus on her ability to match the perfect client to the perfect job (in this case you) and her ability to facilitate that match by selling you on the position and managing the transaction in such a way that she closed the deal. (If any of our readers who are also recruiters have other ideas, please feel free to let me know.) 

By the way - these principles also apply when you are seeking reference letters for your own job search (or writing them for other people.) Reference letters should focus on what matters to the target audience. A glowing letter about all aspects of your personality and background won't be as effective as one that hones in on exactly what the reader wants to know.

So when you request reference letters, you should always tell your referee what part of your background/skills you want to highlight, and you should determine this based on what you know is important to your target employers.

Is there Anybody Alive Out There?

That's the opening line of Bruce Springsteen's last single, but judging from my in-box, it's also the cry from many job seekers wondering why they get so few responses to their job applications. One reader writes:

I've been marketing myself since Nov07 to find a job, unfortunately without success until today. My feeling is that companies are saturated from receiving emails with Personal Records from anybody in the world who is looking for a job, and they just delete them, many times without reading them. What a shame!

 

You write that there are many organizations who need what I have to offer. Please be so kind and tell us which organizations! I've submitted at least 130 times (and probably more) my CV since Nov07. Only 7 companies have answered, but no job possibilities until now. Of course we all have a set of skills, experiences and accomplishments, which are apparently not valued.

 

Can you please help me and other subscribers to your blog with an answer? I'm sure there are many unemployed people in a similar situation.

Well, firstly - 7 responses out of 130 applications is just over a 5% response rate. Many surveys show that companies fill anywhere from 5-10% of their jobs from Internet job postings, although this number increases when the company's own job board is also included.

So that does suggest that this job seeker is experiencing a lower than average response rate to his resume submissions - the most likely problem is that his resume is not effectively communicating his value.

But even after improving his resume, the sad fact is that a strategy of simply applying to posted positions is unlikely to result in a huge improvement.

Job search success requires a much more proactive approach.

Consider this, from an annual survey of American recruiting practices:

Referrals (employee, alumni, vendor, etc.) make up 28.7% of all external hires and are arguably the number one external source. The efficiency of referrals i.e. “every third referral turns into a hire” is one of the single most important characteristics of US hiring practices…and not leveraged as well as it might be

One in three referrals turns into a hire! Doesn't take a math degree to figure out that you will significantly improve your chances of securing a position if you are referred by an insider.

Which means two things:

1) Use your network - make sure that everyone you know is aware of your job search, so that they can be in a position to refer you should they hear of something. Don't restrict your networking only to close friends and family. Include everyone - your doctor, your dentist, the guy in the local Starbucks who you talk to every morning - the more people who know you need a job, the better your chances of a referral.

2) Use the Internet to make contact with people who work at your target companies. LinkedIn is the perfect tool for this and if you don't already have a profile,you need to get one now. Members can search the network by company name, and then make contact via the system.

These are only 2 possible strategies - your success is limited only by your creativity - for example, I know people who have secured job offers by writing blogs about their job search. I know others who have networked their way into jobs that were never even advertised  just by doing research to identify possible opportunities in advance.

But if your job search strategy consists of applying to advertised positions, you will inevitably be invited to far fewer interviews than you deserve.

For more on job search strategies, download the Career Hub "Insider's Guide" series of free eBooks. You'll find tips and strategies from some of America's leading job search experts and there's no charge and no need to give an email address.

To Thine Own Self Be True

We’ve all heard that phrase a thousand times and we know all that it’s good life advice, and yet, when it comes to marketing ourselves, it’s often a lesson that we forget.

I can’t tell you how many senior executive resumes sound exactly alike. Filled with words like ‘results-focused leader’ and “high-energy executive” - everyone is “dynamic” and ‘proven’ and ‘experienced.’  After reading the same thing 30 times, everyone starts to blur together.

Which is really crazy! Because you are totally unique. You have something that no other candidate has. You will add value in a different way. And yet I am willing to bet that your resume doesn’t express  that unique value.

I speak from experience, because for years, I didn’t know how to express my value either. When I first started my resume writing business, I wasn’t sure who my target audience was and why they should choose my company. As the business grew, I started to figure out my unique value (I have prior HR and recruiting experience, which means I know how to get the attention of HR and recruiters). As I figured this out, my marketing messages became clearer. But I still knew I wasn’t getting to the bottom of what made my business different. And very recently, I was hit over the head with the realization that we have a very obvious selling point – we’ve had it all along but I just took it for granted.

It happened this way. One day, I received a request for proposal from a person in the UK. We don’t write resumes for the UK because frankly I have no idea what works there, so I wrote back to the person and politely declined the project. The same day, I also declined a project from a teacher because no one on my staff has expertise in writing resumes for teachers. The next morning, I had emails from both potential clients thanking me for my honesty and for not just taking their money regardless of whether I could provide excellent results.

And it hit me that we do that all the time – we only take on clients I know we can help. On the rare occasions that we misjudge and don’t get results, we refund money.  Our whole business is built around trust – trust that our resumes get results, and trust that we will treat people fairly. And our resume writing process is also base on honesty – we don’t ‘sell’ what people are not – we help them communicate their authentic unique value.  And yet our branding has never reflected that – at least not as a conscious effort. It should!

If you’re like me, you see other people much more clearly than you see yourself. So when it comes to marketing yourself, you probably fall back on platitudes, or standard ideas of what a good executive does. And the resulting resume is probably flat and boring and not at all reflective of what makes you YOU.

Here are a couple of ways you can fix that right now.

1. Think back to compliments you’ve received from bosses, co-workers or clients. What do they say abut you? What words do they choose? Don’t get stuck on what YOU think ... in fact, forget that for now. Just focus on what other people say.

2. Looking back over your career, what themes keep re-emerging? Are you always the person brought in to tackle the most challenging problems? Or have you always found new ways to cut costs?

3. What is your management philosophy? Write it down – don’t worry about spelling or grammar or finding the perfect words – just write whatever comes into your head.

Reviewing all this information will help you determine the answer to the most important question of all: “what make you unique?”

Once you have that answer, you can rewrite your resume, you can prepare for interviews and you can create your ‘elevator pitch.’ All based not on what executives are ‘supposed to be like’ but on who you really are.

Please Sir, Can I Have More Words?

Mostly when I write resumes for clients, they have very few changes or revisions. But the most common change request is for more words.

This "worditis" is a common disease among job seekers. It's the desire to tell all the details of your work history in your resume. It can take the form of adding lots of extra bullet points ('you didn't mention the IT project I worked on in 1987'), it can be a desire to add details to projects that are already listed ('I think we need to point out the ad campaign ran for 5 weeks in 6 major markets'), or it can manifest itself in the need to list every skill ever acquired.

But no matter what form it takes, it IS a disease and it must be beaten! No busy recruiter wants to read a pile of dense, wordy and long-winded documents. If you include too much information, the likelihood is that none of it will be read.

Think of your resume as a brochure rather than the product catalog. It should communicate your key selling points in an attractive, easy-to-read format. It should tell the reader who you are, clearly and concisely, and compel him to take action (in this case, calling you in for an interview.) During the interview process, you will have lots of time to explain the details of your projects and to outline all the great things you've accomplished. Your resume is not the place for that.

But how do you choose what to include and what to omit? Two suggestions:

1) Put yourself in the shoes of the person who will read your resume. Ask yourself what his or her chief concerns are. What do they want in a new employee? What problems do they need to be solved? What opportunities do they need to capitalize on? Look for clues in the job posting, or just use your general knowledge of your industry and field.

2) As you write your resume, ask yourself 'does this piece of information make it significantly more likely that I will get an interview, given what I know about my target audience?' If the answer is 'no,' out it goes!

Less really IS more in a resume. By creating a concise, easy-to-read document that gives an overview of your accomplishments, you will make it so much easier for recruiters to understand the value that you bring.

Do Video Resumes Work?

A reader writes 'what do you think of video resumes?'

Honestly, not much.

I think that the people who developed the idea of video resumes have never hired anyone - or if they have, they've forgotten what the process is like. Here are my two main problems with video resumes:

1) They are inefficient

To find 5-10 people to interview, the average recruiter has to look at a lot of resumes - let's say 100 as a rough average. You can quickly skim 100 resumes in 30-45 minutes. From those you might choose 30 to look at more closely and eliminate 70 as 'not qualified.'

Now you will spend another 30-60 minutes reading the promising resumes in more detail to decide which 10 to interview.

Once you choose your interview candidates, and conduct initial screenings, you need to send those people on to the hiring manager, who also needs to review the resumes before conducting interviews.

At all stages of this process, the reader dictates the length of time he or she needs to find the important information. Fast readers skim more quickly than other people - managers can skip around to see the things that are critical to them.

A video doesn't work this way - when I get a video resume, I have no way of skimming it quickly. I have to sit and watch the whole thing - I can't skip through to the important parts because I don't know where they are. The end result? I won't watch it. Sorry but I just don't have the time. In the 5 minutes it takes me to watch your video resume, I can get through 10 regular resumes.

2) They are unflattering to most people

I'm a political junkie - I watch a lot of those 'talking head' shows on CNN and MSNBC. The other day I was watching a new show with Andrea Mitchell. Andrea is a well-respected journalist with years of experience so I thought her show might be interesting. But it was awful!  Not because of the content, but because Andrea is just not good as a talk show host. She seemed stiff and uncomfortable. Seeing her reminded me just how talented the other hosts are.

Video resumes are like Andrea Mitchell's show only worse! Most people just can't present themselves well on camera and if you're one of them, a video resume can only hurt.

I am sure there is life after the traditional resume, and that technology will change the way we look for work. I just don't think video resumes are the answer.

Ever Wonder If Networking Really Does Work?

Wonder no more!

Recruiting research guru Gerry Crispin has just released his annual survey of hiring practices among America's top corporations.

It's worth reading all the way through (and is a free download) because anyone looking for a job should know how companies hire, but this in particular caught my eye:

Referrals (employee, alumni, vendor, etc.) make up 28.7% of all hires and are arguably the number one external source. The efficiency of referrals i.e. every third referral turns into a hire” is one of the single most important characteristics of US hiring practices

Every third referral? Wow! Crispin doesn't give the same data for the other sources, but I can tell you that every third job applicant responding to a job posting doesn't get hired. Just based on my own experience in HR, I'd guess the ratio is more like 1 in 100 and I could be being overly generous.

What does this mean? It means that you should never apply for a job without first making contact with someone at that company who can refer you on to the right person.

You can do this the old fashioned way, by makng calls to see who you know who knows as guy who knows a guy ... or you can use sites like LinkedIn or Facebook to build your network and stay in touch.  Or combine both methods for maximum results. But if a third of all all referrals get hired, you can't afford to just apply online with everyone else.

I Can't Understand Why I'm Not Getting Call-backs

When I'm procrastinating on a tough project, I start surfing the web. Usually I waste too much time on sites that I can't even remember. But today I came across Not Hired.

I'm still laughing. Check it out - but wait until you have a few minutes spare because once you start clicking, you won't be able to stop.

 

Working with Recruiters vs "Job Finders"

Today I received an email from an executive job seeker who wrote:

I thought you might have some insight relating to the use of an executive head hunter service (for placements of positions paying $150k+). What to look for when one of these companies are representing you. What to watch out for and how to avoid getting ripped off by a shoddy service (excessive fees to me, the job hunter, etc.).

This gave me a great opportunity to distinguish between headhunters and so-called Job Finder firms.

Headhunters

A headhunter (also known as a search firm or recruiter) works for companies who want to fill positions. He or she is paid for finding the right candidate. Payment arrangements differ, but in all cases the job seeker is never the one footing the bill.

Of course this means that recruiters do not represent you, the job seeker. They represent the people who are paying them. Therefore you should not expect them to do any work on your behalf other than possibly submitting your resume for suitable vacancies. If you plan to utilize headhunters during your job search, you should research them using a tool like Executiveagent.com - you can look for recruiters by region or by specialty. (This is very important - most recruiters specialize in either an industry or a function and they don't appreciate receiving resumes from people in a totally different field).

Once you have the list, you should contact as many as you can as this will increase the likelihood that one of them will be looking for someone just like you.

Now for "Job Finder Firms"

These people are out to take your money and they will call themselves whatever it takes to achieve that goal (executive placement, career management etc. etc.).

They will generally claim to have systems and proprietary techniques that will help you find a job. They will often tell you that they have access to 'the hidden job market.'  They will make a smooth sales pitch and it may feel as though you have found a solution to your problems.

But you haven't. Because there is no hidden job market. They have no special knowledge or techniques. They do have some databases, but the web puts the same information at your finger tips. 

These services typically charge between $5,000 and $15,000 for their services. I'd like to link to a few of them, but I can't because they keep closing down, changing their names and moving to new states. Hmmmm ....I wonder why that might be!

The Bottom Line

None of these companies have the answer and none of them can take away the hard work of looking for a new job. You can purchase much higher quality services for far less money if you approach  a professional resume writer for a rewrite (executives should expect to spend between $500 and $1,000 for this service) and, if necessary, work occasionally with a job search coach who can help guide your activities and keep you on track (reasonable fees for this service would be $100-$200 per hour).

But beware anyone who promises to 'represent' you in the job market, or who wants you to pay thousands of dollars for a suite of services. 

For more information, check out this post from Ask the Headhunter or read the complaints on this site.

 

Half Right ... Half Wrong

Seth Godin is one of my favorite bloggers and but in this post about resumes, he's only 50% right.

Seth's looking for an intern and he doesn't like the resumes he's seeing. They're bland and boring and they don't tell him why these candidates are remarkable. Well, that means they're like 99.9% of all resumes out there (which is why people like me get paid to write the other 0.1%).

Seth goes on to say that he wants evidence of what makes a person remarkable.

If you don't have a resume, what do you have?

How about three extraordinary letters of recommendation from people the employer knows or respects?
Or a sophisticated project they can see or touch?
Or a reputation that precedes you?
Or a blog that is so compelling and insightful that they have no choice but to follow up?

Some say, "well, that's fine, but I don't have those."

Yeah, that's my point. If you don't have those, why do you think you are  remarkable, amazing or just plain spectacular? It sounds to me like if you don't have those, you've been brainwashed into acting like you're sort of ordinary.

I absolutely agree that those things are important - that's why I often include glowing LinkedIn testimonials when I write resumes. It's why I advocate for those clients who are good writers to start blogging. It's why I create only portfolios where people can show off their extraordinary work.

That's the 50% that's right.

But it's wrong to advocate for people to scrap the whole idea of a resume, just because the resumes they are writing are ineffective.  For better or worse, almost all hiring managers want to see a resume. Seth might not, but he's unusual and most people won't thank you for mailing in 3 reference letters and a blog URL when they asked for a resume. It'll just make you look like you're too stupid to follow instructions!

Instead, you should look for ways to communicate all those great things that make you special via your resume. You should include quotes from former managers (or peers or employees or clients). You should post the link to your blog and/or Squidoo page and/or web portfolio. You should focus the entire resume on showing how you have made an impact at former employers, how you've shaken things up, what you've contributed ... above all, how each company is different because you worked there.

It's not the resume that's the problem - it's what's on the resume that Seth doesn't like.

Just Tell 'em the Truth

I'm currently working on a resume for a client with a stellar employment background but one major concern. She took a position 6 months ago that she now wishes she hadn't.

The company assured her that they wanted to make great strides in her area of expertise (online marketing) and that she would have complete autonomy over strategy and execution, as well as considerable influence on the budget.

But once she started, it became clear that she was caught in the middle of a feud between the company's President and her boss (the VP of Marketing). She couldn't get an adequate budget, and she found that many of her plans were rejected because of a lack of support from the President. She has been plugging away for 6 months, but the position is far below her capability levels and she is both bored and frustrated, which is why she's decided to look for a new position.

Her question to me was 'how do I address this in interviews?' She's concerned that she has 'failed' and that potential employers will judge her based on this. But she hasn't failed, so much as she just found herself in an impossible situation. Being honest is the best approach.

I already hear people saying 'but you can't be negative in an interview!' That's true, but there's a way to be truthful about the situation without being negative.  For example, my client can explain her decision to leave this way: "the position just didn't work out the way I had expected. It turned out that the President had some very strong objections to online marketing and that he was against my being hired in the first place. If I had known this, I obviously wouldn't have taken the job. Now that I'm there, I've worked hard to make the best of the situation - and I've been able to achieve some successes - but I know I'd be much happier in a company that values online marketing and can really benefit from what I have to offer. That's why I'm so interested in this role ..."

That's not a negative answer - it's an honest one.

The negative answer would be 'well the President is a complete ass and doesn't understand the first thing about online marketing. Plus my boss totally lied to me when she hired me. Oh, and the person in the next cubicle doesn't seem to shower more than once a month. Honestly? I'm mad as hell at the whole situation."

Now that would be a bad answer!