Eleven people applied for the Recruiting Coordinator position at Southwestern Illinois College (SWIC). As part of the four-person hiring committee, I reviewed all the résumés to help find the strongest candidates. 

Two were immediately disqualified for targeting the wrong position in their cover letters.

Of the nine résumés that remained:

• 8 were not professionally written. This is a guess, of course, but an educated one. The most visually appealing résumé included one with a two-column format and a photo. It was not selected.

• 6 were two pages; 2 were three pages long.

• All of them included a customized cover letter, as requested in the job ad.

• In general, my fellow committee members were much more critical of the cover letters than they were of the résumés. 

• 4 were selected for interviews. I agreed with three of those choices.

That’s where it stands as of this writing. By the time you read this, there is a good chance that an official offer has been extended and accepted. One person is going to have an even happier holiday season.

Eight will not…at least not as a SWIC employee.

Some of them will perhaps start a position at one of the 10 other jobs they applied for using the exact same résumé. Some of them will postpone their job search until after the new year. Some of them will go to holiday parties and tell their friends how tough the job market is right now.

And a large percentage of the unchosen will never suspect that NOT A SINGLE APPLICANT appeared to customize their résumé for the position. Some had professional experience that was more aligned with the job requirements, but clearly it was up to the reader to make that connection.

For some of them, it might not have made a difference.

But for those of you who serve clients in competitive job search situations, think of targeting the résumé as a bare minimum, drop-dead, gotta-do checklist item that is sure to help them stand out among a pool of DIY résumé writers.

Marketing guru Seth Godin said it this way:

“It’s so tempting to write for everyone. But everyone isn’t going to read your work, someone is….Name the people you’re writing for. Ignore everyone else.”

In the case of the new SWIC Recruiting Coordinator, someone who ignored that advice is still going to get a job offer. But the candidates who ignored that advice and were not interviewed could have increased their chances tremendously by thinking about the mindset of the people they were writing for.

I expect to see more of this dynamic as AI empowers people to try writing their own résumé or cover letter with a few simple prompts. In the wrong hands, AI is hardly an equalizer. It ensures we’ll have more work in the future. Strategic and authentic writing are both in high demand, still the byproduct of critical thinking.

I look at it this way. I see all these fancy video clips and recipes for the most appetizing meals and desserts, so simple even a non-cooking fool like me could do it. Except even if it turns out good, it’s an accident at best.

Stay in your lane, amateurs! Don’t you know that we’re trained for this?

A June 2024 research article in Science Advances presents another argument for writing simpler and more effective content. The research focused on how readers engaged with news headlines from the Washington Post and Upworthy, a storytelling website. Through a series of independent projects, they reached this conclusion:

“In both lab-controlled experiments and real-world trials, headlines that used common words with fewer syllables attracted more reader engagement. More analytic and complex headlines got fewer clicks, and some readers didn’t even remember them just minutes after seeing them.”

What are the implications for résumé writers?

For one, it is a reminder that résumé reading is often done in a competitive online environment where people are “economical with their attention.” No surprise there. But perhaps more importantly, the study revealed a gap between writers and readers, a “disconnect between what journalists think audiences will read and what they actually do.”

I believe that same gap is abundant across our industry. It applies to my work, your work, and anyone else who uses the written word to address a decision-making audience. And it applies to more than just headlines.

Our Fundamentals team recently explored one of the ways this might creep into your own work. A common concept among résumé writers is to “match the language of the job description” because the ATS will use that language as the basis for scanning résumé content to identify qualified candidates.

We looked at a randomly selected job description that included this phrase: 

“Set strategy for data governance work streams to ensure integrity and quality of large data sets that inform business decisions and optimize operations, influencing 3rd party vendors and internal analytics partners to manage timelines and deliverables.”

It might be grammatically correct, but that sentence received a negative score on more than one readability tool. It is a collection of syllables not worthy of being copied and pasted as is. It SOUNDS very corporate, but that’s about it. If it’s important enough to be included, it’s important enough to be included more simply.

A simplified version of that phrase might look like this: 

“Create plans to ensure important data is correct and useful, enabling better business decisions and work efficiency. Partner with outside companies and internal teams to track progress and meet deadlines.”

That’s much better from a readability standpoint because it has fewer words and syllables, but it comes at a price. If you regurgitate what was originally written, theoretically you stand a better chance of satisfying the ATS gods…but readability is compromised. If you revise what was originally written, you risk that ATS alignment…but stand a better chance of connecting with a human reader. Now imagine making that decision 25-50 times within the same document. The potential upside is huge.

To anyone studying for the CPRW credential or looking to improve the way their work resonates with readers, I wholeheartedly support the conclusion that researchers have once again affirmed: “When all else is equal, and you are on the fence…simpler language is better.”

[HINT: CPRW test submissions are graded by certified WRITERS, not electronic tools or certified readers. Play your hand accordingly.]

You are a person who strives to maintain current best practices in a rapidly changing ecosystem. Out of curiosity, you might prompt your favorite AI platform with the same question you see written above. And if you did, you’d get a variety of answers depending on which platform you asked:

• Chat GPT was the most thorough, outlining 10 trends with brief explanations that have been edited here.

• Claude offered half as much content with the same prompt, including two (#2 and #3) that pretty much repeated the Chat GPT responses.

• Gemini provided only two answers, both of which were mentioned in at least one of the other two lists.

Do you see anything shocking in any of those lists? Probably not. The two that stood out the most to me were Video Résumés and Soft Skills emphasis, mainly because I have no plans to participate any time soon.

Soft skills are great if you can find a way to package them into testimonials or impactful accomplishments. But just listing them on a résumé is pandering to the whole ATS-as-decision-maker narrative that I find to be fantastically inaccurate. 

Video résumés are a next-generation concept. As one of the most tragically unhip dudes on the planet, I’m going to stick with words on the page.

Which leads me to these questions:

1. Which of these trends do you already incorporate into your work?

2. Which of these trends do you disagree with or tend to contradict each other?

3. Which of these trends are not really current trends at all?

4. What is the one trend that each of these AI platforms failed to identify?

5. What aspects of résumé writing are trend-proof and remain constant over the years?

I love having AI as my writing assistant, but blind truth it is not. Never underestimate the role of real intelligence in making résumé writing decisions. I’m putting my money on being able to tell the difference.

You just wrote a résumé for a Certified Treasury Professional (CTP). 

You researched keywords and highlighted the client’s progression through two previous finance jobs and employers. You captured his marketability for a targeted analyst role, which overlapped with many of the job duties and accomplishments in his most recent position with ABC Financial Services Company. You integrated a little dash of green to accentuate the color of money. You’re happy with the results, the client was happy with your work, and all is good in the world.

In a plot twist only a résumé writer would appreciate, your very next client is also a Certified Treasury Professional. All the research and wordsmithing you put into the previous project will surely help reduce the time it takes to write CTP #2. Heck, you could cut and paste the entire summary section and eliminate nearly an hour of work you poured into the first one.

Except CTP #2 is targeting a senior VP role, not an analyst role.

And CTP #2 took a completely different path to get where she is now.

And CTP #2 has twice the experience as CPT #1, including regional director-level positions in the US and abroad.

And CTP #2 has an advanced degree, speaks three languages, and spent seven years in accounts receivable for one of the largest non-profit organizations on the East Coast.

In other words, they are nothing alike.

Each client’s selling proposition is as unique as a snowflake. The résumés might contain common words, phrases, and skills, but the overall marketing message conveyed in the summary is like comparing a dictionary to a thesaurus.

CTP #1 featured a summary paragraph focused on progressive experience and contributions to specific treasury functions. The headline, sub-headline, and body text might look like this:

Financial/Treasury Analyst

Certified Treasury Professional | Association for Financial Professionals

Five years of progressive experience in billing, budget planning, and corporate treasury analysis roles. Recognized for process improvements, exceptional work ethic, and problem-solving contributions to fast-paced organizations, including oversight of key financial metrics for simultaneous field projects. Technical skills include MS Office, MS SQL, QuickBooks, and Tableau.

CTP #2 will feature a summary paragraph that previews a track record of success leading people, projects, and mission-critical resources under challenging conditions. The CTP designation serves as an adjunct credential. It might look like this:

Senior Finance Executive | Domestic & International Operations

Startup, Fast-Growth, Turnaround, & Transitional Leadership

Proven success leading strategic business/financial operations, complex budgeting, and analytical/reporting systems to drive strong and sustained bottom-line growth. Background includes diverse, multicultural environments in several countries; fluent in English, French, & German. A Certified Treasury Professional with deep knowledge of IFRS, US-GAAP, and Dual Standard Systems.

To write so generically that the words can be used universally is not the way to differentiate clients in a competitive market. A unique selling proposition is just that…so unique to the client that no one else can say the same thing. It is the ultimate single-use product. If your summary paragraph is reusable, it is unusable.

Depending on which research you believe, nonverbals are reported to contribute as much as 55% to overall communication. The tone of voice accounts for 38%, and actual spoken words contribute only 7%. Most commonly attributed to the work of Albert Mehrabian, these percentages refer specifically to how we convey feelings and attitudes in certain interpersonal situations.

On a much less scientific scale, some of those same dynamics are relative to the written word as well. Professional writers like you and I are trained to slave over every little nuance of the English language. Even if our reading audience barely got a passing grade on their high school term paper, we give them Shakespeare and assume they’ll appreciate the way our words dance and sing in dramatic structure.

But even the most untrained reader uses two overarching laws to evaluate résumé nonverbals:

The Law of Consistency | For as much as résumé writers “violate” common rules of the English language, they often overcome usage standards by doing so consistently. From capitalization and punctuation to the use of white space and color, visual consistency is a highly desirable trait from the reader’s perspective.

The Law of Contrast | The main purpose of formatting is to make sure certain content stands out compared to what is above it, below it, or beside it. Too much or too little is a subjective standard that only you can decide. Just know that your reader wants to make sense of your document quickly. Strong formatting choices provide the contrast to support and facilitate that process.

Some of the most common issues that involve the evaluation of résumé nonverbals include:

• Formatting/Layout: A simple, clean, and organized layout creates a visually appealing résumé. Use consistent formatting for headings, bullet points, and text alignment. Ensure a balanced use of white space to avoid a cluttered appearance and improve readability.

• Font and Font Size: Choose a professional and easy-to-read font (e.g., Georgia, Arial, Calibri, or Cambria). Stick to a consistent font family throughout the document. Typically, the header may have a larger font size (13-16 pt.), while the body of the résumé would be a more standard size (10-12 points).

• Bold, Italics, & Underlining: Use these formatting options selectively to emphasize key points such as job titles, company names, or achievements. Avoid overusing these styles to maintain readability.

• Bullet Points: Use bullet points strategically and consistently. If you use bullets to showcase accomplishments, choose a different content format for job duties or responsibilities. Bulleted lists can be scanned quickly, making it more likely that important information will be noticed.

• Consistent Styling: For example, if you bold your job titles, continue to do so consistently for each position. Consistency in styling contributes to a polished and professional appearance.

• Color: Adding a touch of color can help your résumé stand out. Use color sparingly and ensure it enhances rather than distracts from the content.

• Margins: Keep consistent and reasonable margins to maintain a balanced look (no smaller than .5” on all sides). Cramped or widened margins change the overall visual appeal.

• Lines and Dividers: Strategically use horizontal lines (borders) or dividers to separate sections and create a visual hierarchy. This can help guide the reader's eyes through the document.

• Date Formatting: Maintain a consistent format for dates (e.g., month and year) throughout your work experience section. Consistency in date formatting adds to the overall professionalism.

Relevant content will always be king, but résumé nonverbals help carry the message, too. Sometimes they speak louder than words, and when they do…what do your nonverbals say?