SURVEY OF RECRUITMENT
CONSULTANCIES & COMPANIES

BACKGROUND

Chiumento Consulting Group and Effective Resources carried out a survey of 2000 recruitment consultancies and 1000 top companies, aimed at obtaining answers to question "What makes an effective CV?". Both surveys gained a response rate of around 30%: 580 recruiters and 302 companies answered the questions on the preferred style, format and content of CVs, often adding their own detailed comments.

The survey greatly extends the scope of Effective Resources’ 1992 survey of recruiters, with which comparisons have been made to determine whether the evolution of both technology and the job market has changed perceptions of these key recipients of CVs.

We also encouraged respondents to add their own comments. We believed that recipients of CVs frequently hold strongly held views on the usefulness of a document which is central to the recruitment process and were not disappointed.

In view of the subjectivity of the subject, it is not surprising that what emerges from the survey is consensus rather than unanimity. Nevertheless some important lessons emerge for jobseekers and their advisors.

THE RESULTS

QUESTION 1:

What do you consider to be the ideal length for a CV?

A strong result in favour of the two or three page CV, preferred by 95.2% of recruitment consultants and 98% of company respondents (the percentages total over 100% because of a number of respondents ticking both 2 and 3). By contrast the number of respondents favouring one page falls from a 1992 figure of 9% to 2.6% (recruiters) and 1.67% (companies). Even less respondents favour a CV which has more than three pages.

Most additional comments stress that the length of any CV depends highly on the extent and complexity of the persons experience (28 consultants). Other commented:

• That content is more important than number of pages (3)
• A preference for one page double sided (3)
• A preference for a summary page followed by either one or two pages, a format which reflects the two uses of a CV: (a) as a screening document and (b) as the agenda for the interview.

QUESTION 2: Style/layout

Should CV’s be laid out in chronological or reverse chronological order or by skills?

Over 90% of all respondents in both categories favour reverse chronology. Few favour a "skills only" CV, which, some commentators fear may be used to disguise an unstable employment pattern. On the other hand this did not mean that skills should not be included within a reverse chronological framework. One respondent recommended a hybrid result with the last job followed by previous jobs in chronological order.

QUESTION 3: Tailored design

Should a CV be designed specifically for each and every advertised position?

Word processing enables candidates easily to re-compile CVs in order to change their emphasis and include information relevant to an advertised position. Half the company respondents and 43% of consultants felt this was legitimate and in some cases made the screening task easier. A few added caveats stressing that tailoring should be a matter of emphasis rather than substance.

Rather more (14 recruiters and 7 companies) felt that it should be the covering letter which should be tailored to highlight items within the CV relevant to the advertised position.

QUESTION 4: Paper colour

On what colour paper do you like to see CVs presented?

White is easily first choice, especially among recruitment consultants. Several ticked white and cream (hence the percentages total over 100).

Among the additional comments, seven respondents stress the importance of being able to photocopy or fax the result clearly. A small number requesting "eye catching" CVs were balanced by a similar number requesting that colours should not be attention-grabbing: horses for courses perhaps.

QUESTION 5: Electronic CVs

Electronic CV scanning or input enables candidates’ data to be stored in a retrievable format. At the input stage the document is scanned for key words which can be defined in order, at a later stage, for the documents to be searched and retrieved.

The results show a marked contrast between the recruitment consultants and companies. Few companies are contemplating installing a scanning system for automatic screening and only 2% have systems installed. By contrast, 73 (12.5%) of recruiters have systems installed, and a further 22.9% are contemplating installing within a two year timescale.

QUESTION 6:

Should the covering letters accompanying a CV be hand-written or typed? (please select one):

Both groups score most highly on "no preference" – around 45%. Adding in these responses produces a favourable (or at least non-negative) view of typed covering of

letters responses of 87.3% (recruitment consultants) and 79.2% (companies). The equivalent for hand-written are 59.2% and 66.3% respectively, of respondents. Compared to the 1992 survey this shows an increased preference for typed covering letters.

As in 1992, there is a considerable respondent comment on legibility; the simple message is that anyone who has the slightest doubt about the legibility or quality of their handwriting should not hesitate to type their letters. Another conclusions of the 1992 survey would still seem to hold true:

"Assuming their handwriting is neat and legible, job searches should, rather, pay attention to the content, layout and legibility of their letters, aiming for a short, factual, purposeful document which whets the reader’s appetite for the accompanying CV".

QUESTION 7a: (Recruitment Consultants only)

If you receive an application from a candidate who makes it clear they have recently been made redundant, does this,

• Detract from the application?
• Enhanced the application?
• Make no difference either way?

The overwhelming response in the "Makes not a blind bit of difference" category should be encouraging job seekers who have recently been made redundant, although there has been an increase among in recruiters who feel that declaring redundancy detracts.

The comments to this question were illuminating. Commentators believing that redundancy could enhance a person’s candidature cited the benefits of immediate availability and honesty: the growth of the interim job market may be having an influence here. By contrast, redundancy that was disguised or omitted (e.g. by implying continued employment in dating the last position) was felt to detract strongly.

Seven respondents mentioned that the reason behind the redundancy was important. A good reason, such as closure or take-over, appears to provide a transparent reason for a career move and may enable a larger range of jobs to be applied for with credibility. Two others replies felt that whatever enhancement there was tended to fall off once the period of unemployment exceeded 6 months.

QUESTION 7b: (Companies only)

To whom you would advise a job searcher to submit their CV for consideration?

70% of responses suggest CVs should be sent to Personnel/HR; 18% of others prefer Function Head. 25 responses (8.3%) suggested sending CVs to both Personnel and either Function Head or Function Director.

Nine additional comments stressed the need to take into account the level of the position sought and the size of the organisation, while three others declared that letters should be addressed to a the appropriate person by name, not just the job title.

QUESTION 8: CV Content

Comments from respondents to the 1992 survey stressed the importance of CV content in the make-up of an effective CV. This year’s survey provided an opportunity to respond at length on what components were important. Respondents were asked to rate 29 items as to whether they were of high medium or low importance. The choice of items reflected our experience of what we encounter in CVs and were not meant as an endorsement – some may have seemed strange, other items may have appeared too obvious to mention, their inclusion reflected the fact that they were sometimes omitted.

The following table presents the results of the two groups of respondents in rank order with an average score, based upon a rating of:

3 for High Importance, 2 for Medium Importance, 1 for Low Importance.

Comments on the Content:

Work experience heads the list in both cases and there is a fair similarity between the two sets of rankings (cross-correlation of 0.9) but some significant differences.

The recruitment consults’ ratings tend to be higher overall, with 17 scores over 2.0, compared to the corporate respondents’ 14.

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 recruit 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

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 should 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:

1. Descriptions of the employer’ business are very useful if the organisation is an obscure one (four replies).
2. 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.