Interesting post from Quartz (original here):
It’s not exactly E=mc².
But for would-be job hunters, it’s probably a lot more useful.
In a Q&A-style interview with Google’s senior vice president of people operations Laszlo Bock, The New York Times’s Tom Friedman fished a few seriously helpful words of wisdom out of the search giant’s human resources chief. This one is perhaps the most concrete.
How do you write a good résumé?
“The key,” [Bock] said, “is to frame your strengths as: ‘I accomplished X, relative to Y, by doing Z.’ Most people would write a résumé like this: ‘Wrote editorials for The New York Times.’ Better would be to say: ‘Had 50 op-eds published compared to average of 6 by most op-ed [writers] as a result of providing deep insight into the following area for three years.’ Most people don’t put the right content on their résumés.”
Google has seemed to get a lot more rational about its hiring habits under Bock, who notably admitted that the famous brain-teasers the Mountain View, Calif. company once used to winnow potential hires proved to be a complete waste of time. Moreover, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the résumé is far from dead even for the most sophisticated big-data operations. Although—as always—poorly written CVs do quickly get buried.
Thanks, Matt. This is from the company that took about 15 years to stop doing so many of the stupid hiring/recruiting things that ordinary recruiters knew were stupid from DayOne, that liked to hire onsite scheduler /coordinators with Master's degrees, had their recruiters mainly reviewing hiring packets for presentation to the Hiring Committee like supplicants before Middle Eastern potentates, and would reject non-engineers who didn't get the highest GPAs from top-tier/elite schools regardless of how well they may have done in the years or decades since?