After years of executive ‘headhunting’ as it’s commonly-known, sitting on in-house selection teams and being the company representative at hundreds of job fairs, I’ve come to a few consistencies for the ever-unique and situational resume review process.

Level 1: Readability and ‘ease on the eye.’

The initial review is often done by a recruiter, who often reads through hundreds of resumes each week. The recruiter’s head: Can I read this easily and extract what I need? Their deeper interpretation: This candidate’s resume is clear and easy to read. They could be an organized individual, well-schooled and professionally-polished; might have a good eye for design and content, perhaps. (Note: Recruiters will also search for certain keywords or software that is specific to the job description, so be sure to include your use of SiteCatalyst, Google Analytics, Eloqua, etc. and make sure those keywords ‘pop’ on the resume).

Level 2: Contents. 

This is the perspective of the recruiter and hiring manager. This is where they interpret your bullet points, your day-to-day task experience and what’s in it for them to interview you. Their heads: What exactly has this candidate done, and how can they impact us? What separates them from the rest? I like the figures and statistics here, and the results depicted here . . . Their deeper interpretation: This candidate showed actual results of business growth and dollars saved. They seem detail-oriented and self-aware because they tracked those figures, and they must be talented to produce those numbers. They seem like they could impact the bottom line of our business. Let’s bring them in.

Level 3: Tone / Writing Style. 

This is usually the perspective of the recruiter at first, with the hiring manager revisiting it during crucial decisions. It can be the make or break factor when selection teams are narrowing down the pool for in-person interviews. Their heads: How were these last two resumes written, and how does that translate to the potential performance of these candidates? Stacy comes from a similar company but her resume was written using soft and generic verbiage. Sophie, on the other hand, could have a more challenging transition into our company, but her resume tone is much stronger. Their deeper interpretation: Since Sophie’s resume is written better, she might be the best for this 3rd interview spot. I sense she could be a stronger writer and verbal communicator, more effective influencer, and overall higher-caliber candidate. I was more sold on Sophie from the resume – let’s bring her in!

Hopefully this gives you, the job seeker, insight into how your resume could be viewed, and how you should approach writing it. Good luck!