A friend from my college days recently contacted me to change his email address from work to home - unfortunately, he is about to be unemployed.
Of course, I asked if there was anything I could do to help him. I asked him to send me a resume and any ideas about what he would be looking for, so I could alert him if I heard about any opportunity that might be of interest to him.
He sent me a one-page resume. Below his personal information (name, address, home and cell phone numbers, email address) was a listing of nine jobs he has held from 1977 to the present. Each listing showed the employer's name, the position title, and the start and end dates of the engagement. Then there was one very short (three lines) paragraph about about his skills, including all the software programs with which he is familiar. Finally, there was information on his degree.
I suggested to him that his resume was kind of "bare bones" -- that he should consider adding a one- to two-sentence description of each position he had held, with each position showing a higher level of responsibility than the previous one. That way, when the reader got to the end of the resume, he would have a real idea of my friend's capabilities and accomplishments. I also suggested that this could be done and still keep the resume only two pages long.
He responded with the following: "I agree about the bare-bones resume, but am hearing that two-page resumes are one page too long." Then he asked what I thought about that.
So I have been thinking about this over the past few days. No matter what direction my thoughts take, I keep reaching the conclusion that, within the bounds of common sense, a resume has to be whatever length it takes to tell the story, to convince the screening or selection person(s) to give you an interview.
My friend has 20+ years of experience in four positions that carried the same title, but for different kinds of organizations. I would bet that the actual job responsibilities differed with each position, especially those for a law firm and those for a municipal housing authority. Without some clarifying description of responsibilities and activities, how would the reader know what my friend had actually done?
Here's a great example:
An "administrative assistant" in a law firm might be someone who types briefs, memos and correspondence for a variety of attorneys and others in the firm, but that person might also be an office manager, or more.
Many years ago, I had a friend who worked at a major Austin, TX, law firm. Her official title was "administrative assistant," but she did very little typing, filing or coffee-making. She actually ran the office and supervised the other administrative support staff. She also conducted the first screening interviews for new lawyers and paralegals, negotiated leases for the firm's office space, and was responsible for scheduling the use and maintenance of the company's transportation fleet (automobiles and airplanes!). Big difference, huh?
Obviously, you have to make an informed decision regarding what is important to tell a prospective new employer. You have to be able to distinguish the difference between what the employer might want to hear and what your ego wants to tell. But you have to be confident enough to tell the story, and to tell it in a compelling manner. Sure, you can flesh out all those engagements in your interview, but a bare-bones recitation of your previous employers, position titles and dates may not be enough to secure that interview.
"Moolah"
(Austin downtown art-cow collection)