Submitted by jasondgross on
in
Forums
I'm refreshing my resume and I know I need to go back and listen to the resume podcast but wanted to tap the wisdom of the crowd for some resume advice.
Which format is the more effective way to convey you work experience? For example:
1)
Assitant to the Regional Manager - Dunder Mifflin
2)
Dunder Mifflin - Assistant to the Regional Manager
I'm probably splitting hairs but my reason for asking is while can vary from company to company, company names might carry some weight. I know that ultimately how your skills and abilities are reflected in the resume will determine how much time is spent reading your resume, but I think anything that has a chance to catch someones eye can't be underestimated. Which format do you prefer and why (or doesn't it matter)?
two cents
First: whichever approach you use, be consistent throughout. You want to make navigating your document as easy as possible for the reader.
Second: my opinion is that you lead with your roles, and not with the companies. Reasoning: the document is about YOU, so your roles rightfully "outrank" the companies.
Bonus thought: it probably doesn't matter a whole lot. Just be consistent.
Agreed
Consistency is key. Make it easy on the reader.
Also, while I'm interested in Who you worked for, I'm far more concerned about what you accomplished.
Definitely roles first
Follow the format (bold & underline):
January 09 to March 10: Assistant to Regional Manager, Dunder Mifflin
Roles should ALWAYS come before the company, even if it's "Janitor, NASA". Some people may disagree, but you have to try and please a majority. Most recruiters want to read this as reversed chronologically, so leading with dates makes it easy for them to verify they are digesting the info in the right order.
Ultimately, if you're really good then it doesn't matter too much (provided you get someone to actually read your resume). But don't put yourself in a hole unnecessarily.
-JIB
Between the two, option 1 is
Between the two, option 1 is a much easier read.
If I could put a third option in front of you, this is my favorite format, if you have held multiple positions within a company (as Dwight has!). To me, loyalty and willingness to grow within a company count for something, and if you can show that you are a long term prospect, that is a positive.
Dunder Mifflin - 1995-present
Assistant Regional Manager 2008 - present
Assistant to the Regional Manager 2005 - 2008
Sales Lead 2000 - 2005
Sales Associate 1995 - 2000
Acme Paper Company - 1994 - 1995
Intern
Thanks All
Thanks for all the feedback. I tend to agree with most of the comments in that the resume is designed to sell you and not who you worked for, and more importantly it's designed to sell what you can accomplish for your future prospective employer.
The order that highlights your growth
It's been awhile since I listened to the MT resume podcasts, so I hope this doesn't contradict what they say.
First, I think it probably doesn't matter much as long as you're consistent.
But since you asked, intuitively, I agree that the role should come first, as long as it shows a pattern of increasing responsibility. The only exception I can think of is if you had held the exact same role at increasingly impressive companies:
Jan 2007-present, Global Dominance Paper Company, Sales Manager
Mar 2005-Dec 2007, National Leader Paper Company, Sales Manager
Apr 2004-Feb 2005, Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, Sales Manager
Jan 2003-Mar 2004, Fly-by-night Paper Company, Sales Manager
R.