|
PRODUCING
AN EFFECTIVE CV
WHAT
THE EMPLOYERS AND RECRUITERS SAY
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Chiumento
Consulting Group and Effective Resources carried out a survey
of 2000 recruitment consultancies and 1000 top companies,
aimed at obtaining answers to the question "What makes
an effective CV?" Both surveys gained a response rate
of around 30%: 580 recruiters and 302 companies answered questions
on the preferred style, format and content of CVs.
What
emerged from the survey is consensus rather than unanimity
on a wide range of subjects, not just confined to the design
of CV but also shedding light on its place within the recruitment
process.
|
QUESTIONS
|
RESPONSES
|
| |
|
| What
do you consider to be the ideal length for a CV? |
An
overwhelming result in favour of 2-3 pages. A two page
CV is preferred by 60% of recruiters (up from 42% in
1992) and 70% of companies. 36% of recruiters and 28%
of corporate responses favour three pages.
Additional
comments stress the difficulty of generalising, as the
ideal length of any CV depends on the complexity of
the person’s experience.
|
| |
|
| Should
CVs be laid out in chronological order by skills? |
Over
90% of all respondents favour reverse chronology. Few
favour a "skills only" CV, which, some commentators
fear may be used to disguise an unstable employment
pattern.
|
| |
|
| Should
a CV be designed specifically for each advertised position? |
43%
of consultants and 50% of companies are in favour of
tailoring: additional comments stress that this should
be a matter of emphasis rather than substance.
|
| |
|
| Colour
of paper |
White
is strongly preferred (by 73%). Comments stress the
importance of being able to photocopy the result.
|
| |
|
|
Electronics
CVs
|
Few
companies (9%) are contemplating installing a scanning
system for automatic screening and only 2% have systems
installed. By contrast 75 anticipate installation within
6 months and 53 in 7-24 months. A further 35 are "contemplating".
|
| |
|
|
Covering
letters: should they be hand-written or typed?
|
Among
companies, the preference for typed letter is 33%, the
same figures as for recruiters in 1992.
|
| |
|
|
Does
a candidate’s declared redundancy detract, enhance or
make no difference to their application?
|
Overwhelmingly
87.4% of respondents felt it made no difference to a
candidate’s application and could sometimes enhance
(3.8%). Comments cited immediate availability as one
bonus. However, redundancy that was disguised or omitted
was disliked.
|
| |
|
|
To
whom would you advise a jobseeker to submit a CV?
|
70%
suggest CVs should be sent to Personnel/HR; 18% prefer
Function Head. 25 responses (8.3%) suggested sending
CVs to both personnel and either Function Head
or Function Director.
Additional
comments stressed the need to take into account the
level of the position sought.
|
| |
|
|
Content
|
Work
experience heads the list in both cases and there is
a fair similarity between the two sets of rankings but
some significant differences.
Company
respondents valued the personal profile and membership
of professional associations significantly higher than
recruiters, while recruiters gave higher importance
ratings to language proficiency, age and marital status.
While
both groups rated the personal profile as of medium-to-high
importance, there was much heartfelt comment on the
failings of many of the profiles received.
Among
the commentaries there was a consensus, too, that salary
information, while important, should go in the covering
letter and that information on referees was more appropriately
furnished later in the proceedings.
|
A
large number of respondents from both groups stressed that
their importance rating, especially of items such as driving
licence and languages, depends frequently on the context and
demands of the role.
The
main specific points are as follows:
Profile
While
both groups rated the personal profile as above average importance,
this subject generated the most heartfelt comment, particularly
from recruitment consultants. Comments from respondents who
marked profiles down included "waste of time", "sententious
tosh" and "overdone".
Others
cited the profile as the one place where the candidates got
an opportunity to sell themselves and therefore enabled the
recruiter to make a judgement on this aspect.
It
would appear that many of the criticisms reflect the failings
of many of the profiles received rather than the profile per
se and it may be worth quoting some of the advice given,
namely to restrict them to 4-5 lines, focus on real experience
and avoid "guff", verbosity and opinion, particularly
truisms and words like "forward looking, adaptable and
good will with people at all levels".
Salary
Information
There
was a consensus among commentators that salary information,
while important, should go in the covering letter. It also
enables recruiters to forward CVs without the need to remove
this information.
Referees
Not
required at the CV stage as information on referees was more
appropriately furnished later in the proceedings.
Physical
disability
Cited
as important if specific arrangements needed to be made at
the interview stage, e.g. for access or sign language help.
It was mostly corporate responses that made this point; one
of whom guaranteed an interview to any disabled candidate
meeting the minimum criteria. The recruiters' comments tended
to be more along the lines of "important if disabled",
which may have indicated equal concern but on the other hand
may not.
Nationality
Important
if work permit considerations apply, e.g. for overseas positions
or because of the status of the candidate within the UK.
Psychometrics
Rated
as less important and could be misinterpreted by untrained
recipients. If firms regard psychometrics as important they
tend to carry out tests themselves.
Employers
Business
Two
main points emerge from the additional comments:
- Descriptions
of the employer’ business are very useful if the organisation
is an obscure one (four replies).
- If
included, keep them brief.
Hobbies
and Interests
Somewhat
surprisingly marked as less important (under 1.5) by both
groups. There were a few pleas that, if included, interests
should be kept relevant and brief. One response indicated
the kind of irrelevancies that crop up; wife’s employment,
children’s first names and pony club rosettes.
Age
In
the light of the current debate over "agents" recruitment
advertising, it is interesting to note that age was rated
a much more important item by recruiters (2.3) than by the
corporate respondents (1.7), many of whom are recruitment
consultants’ clients. Twelve replies stated a preference for
date of birth; three other recruiters regarded the omission
of any age indicator as suspicious, although it was a corporate
respondent who declared that the inclusion of age was useful
because it enabled the reader to profile the level of experience
within the CV.
Other
items
There
were a few comments on items not mentioned in the survey.
There still appears to be too much poor spelling, even among
senior executives; two people mentioned photographs (one for,
one against) and one the uselessness of overpacking (binders
and covers) which end up in the bin.
|
