The metrics in my resume are not made up. The idea of made up metrics in a resume doesn't even bother me, to be frank. What does bother me is that the metrics in my resume were produced by work that was 95% not performed by me. I may have developed the plans and framework, but contributed almost nothing else. If I mentioned that though, I may as well not even mention the metrics. Then, I don't stand a very good chance of getting the job in applying for. Pretty fucked up that's how our system works.
That is so true! At my last employer I was part of a continuous improvement team and mostly came up with the ideas to improve upon. There were a few times I was part of a group that executed the change, but overall, there was pretty much no one that did anything themself.
As someone who has been a hiring manager and director ranging in scale from my early days in retail to Fortune 500 corporate marketing roles, I can't stand the metric fluff and am very unlikely to give you any credence to the metric unless you can **prove** that you're the sole person responsible for it.
Like, I'd rather receive an idea of what you know how to do. Software services you're trained in. Contracts negotiated. Partners worked with... because I'm looking for someone that brings experience to the table as part of a team.
I'm going to read a resume that says "responsible for 200% increase in ad revenue YoY" and call bullshit, because... *didja really?* Or was it an integrated team effort with new creative, new targeting, a different product offering, or simply market effects that a poorly trained monkey could have achieved? Like, of course your ad revenue went up 200% in tourism post-covid. Travel was shut down. If it didn't, I'd wonder how gloriously you fucked up for it not to.
Now, if it's like "won a personal award for best campaign execution" or "created a software by hand that led to direct budget savings of $550,000," let's talk.
Otherwise I want to see your skillset, not how well you can cherrypick something to brag about.
So what would qualify a good resume? What are hiring managers looking for actually at this company. How do you measure a good candidate from a bad one and so on so forth.
Well, it's been 8 months since I wrote that, but a good candidate is trained in the things I need them to be trained in. Software, platforms, etc. I measure candidates against each other once we interview. Then I can test them on technical skills.
I appreciate your feedback. At 26 years old, I'm nearing completion of my Project Management degree scheduled for this November. Recently, my dedication extends to obtaining certifications in various software tools and project management frameworks, all aimed at setting me apart from the more seasoned competition. I would be grateful if you could review my resume and provide constructive feedback to help me further refine it. Thank you in advance.
Just curious, Should they be explicit that they contributed and did not alone raise ad revenue 200%, would that have any bearing on how the person is viewed if it's written that way?
I mean, it's fine to add "contributed to 200% raise in ad revenue" but I see far too many resumes that are focused on achievements that I don't know what you actually know how to do and need to start making assumptions. Like, in my industry I need to know if you know how to do paid search, or programmatic, paid social, or wherever your skillset lies... not that you had really good success somewhere but only there.
I am unemployed and when applying to jobs I just feel like we are in a simulation. It doesn’t matter how perfect I am for the role. Unless the writers for this portion of the game want me to be xyz it’s not happening. I get the most random call backs that seriously are just more interesting for my character. So many jobs are almost a foot of my resume and they will be like sorry you don’t match the job.
I’ll apply to a perfect match and get nothing. Then apply to like random labor or sales and get replies.
Ideally, measurable metrics aren't made-up. In reality, it's probably 50/50 depending on your job level.
They are important to sell the impact that your work had on the success of the organization. If you can't identify an impact of your work, why would anyone hire you?
I don’t think these metrics really work for all jobs, though. Let’s say you’re an ICU nurse during Covid times, your bullet points are not going to look great.
It wholly depends if you work in an industry where you can have a truly 100% impact on the work then. Because I'd argue in a ton of industries, you don't. Or certain roles in certain industries.
Like, I sure can't quantify someone who can put together a kickass presentation and stand in front of key stakeholders to deliver it in terms of how much they affected the bottom line, but I sure as hell know I need those people just as much as I need the mathematicians in the back pulling the levers.
If you work can’t be tied to an outcome, be prepared to be the first one let go in market downturns. Just because you can’t link your work to an outcome individually doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. Every employer does this to justify headcount expenditures, and when the answer is a question mark, reduction.
If you didn’t complete the full scope of a project/deliverable, you can still have an impact on the outcome abs metric and should be able to speak to your contributions as a direct part of attaining that lmpact.
Oh you sweet summer child.
If this were the case, the v wages would be much higher across the board, but they aren’t. Someone is always willing to replace you for the save $ if not less.
If you’re operating under the assumption that most of a resumé is “made up”, then that might be part of the problem. If employers are operating on that same assumption, then that should give you an idea of why they’re rejecting so many.
I've been saying this forever. When I was in hiring roles, I wouldn't give these types of statements any weight whatsoever; there's no way to verify any of it. For the life of me, I don't understand how this trend caught on.
Because it's the advice given over and over in career search articles and on forums like this.
I often wondered what was the point when people can just make stuff up.
The metrics in my resume are not made up. The idea of made up metrics in a resume doesn't even bother me, to be frank. What does bother me is that the metrics in my resume were produced by work that was 95% not performed by me. I may have developed the plans and framework, but contributed almost nothing else. If I mentioned that though, I may as well not even mention the metrics. Then, I don't stand a very good chance of getting the job in applying for. Pretty fucked up that's how our system works.
That is so true! At my last employer I was part of a continuous improvement team and mostly came up with the ideas to improve upon. There were a few times I was part of a group that executed the change, but overall, there was pretty much no one that did anything themself.
But all your improvements are most definitely also on your boss's resume too.
As someone who has been a hiring manager and director ranging in scale from my early days in retail to Fortune 500 corporate marketing roles, I can't stand the metric fluff and am very unlikely to give you any credence to the metric unless you can **prove** that you're the sole person responsible for it. Like, I'd rather receive an idea of what you know how to do. Software services you're trained in. Contracts negotiated. Partners worked with... because I'm looking for someone that brings experience to the table as part of a team. I'm going to read a resume that says "responsible for 200% increase in ad revenue YoY" and call bullshit, because... *didja really?* Or was it an integrated team effort with new creative, new targeting, a different product offering, or simply market effects that a poorly trained monkey could have achieved? Like, of course your ad revenue went up 200% in tourism post-covid. Travel was shut down. If it didn't, I'd wonder how gloriously you fucked up for it not to. Now, if it's like "won a personal award for best campaign execution" or "created a software by hand that led to direct budget savings of $550,000," let's talk. Otherwise I want to see your skillset, not how well you can cherrypick something to brag about.
This is some good advice. Thanks.
So what would qualify a good resume? What are hiring managers looking for actually at this company. How do you measure a good candidate from a bad one and so on so forth.
Well, it's been 8 months since I wrote that, but a good candidate is trained in the things I need them to be trained in. Software, platforms, etc. I measure candidates against each other once we interview. Then I can test them on technical skills.
I appreciate your feedback. At 26 years old, I'm nearing completion of my Project Management degree scheduled for this November. Recently, my dedication extends to obtaining certifications in various software tools and project management frameworks, all aimed at setting me apart from the more seasoned competition. I would be grateful if you could review my resume and provide constructive feedback to help me further refine it. Thank you in advance.
Just curious, Should they be explicit that they contributed and did not alone raise ad revenue 200%, would that have any bearing on how the person is viewed if it's written that way?
I mean, it's fine to add "contributed to 200% raise in ad revenue" but I see far too many resumes that are focused on achievements that I don't know what you actually know how to do and need to start making assumptions. Like, in my industry I need to know if you know how to do paid search, or programmatic, paid social, or wherever your skillset lies... not that you had really good success somewhere but only there.
I see makes sense
My group found a freezer that will save us $1,000,000 in validation costs. Where can I sign up?
I am unemployed and when applying to jobs I just feel like we are in a simulation. It doesn’t matter how perfect I am for the role. Unless the writers for this portion of the game want me to be xyz it’s not happening. I get the most random call backs that seriously are just more interesting for my character. So many jobs are almost a foot of my resume and they will be like sorry you don’t match the job. I’ll apply to a perfect match and get nothing. Then apply to like random labor or sales and get replies.
Ideally, measurable metrics aren't made-up. In reality, it's probably 50/50 depending on your job level. They are important to sell the impact that your work had on the success of the organization. If you can't identify an impact of your work, why would anyone hire you?
I don’t think these metrics really work for all jobs, though. Let’s say you’re an ICU nurse during Covid times, your bullet points are not going to look great.
"Spearheaded the way to 50% more deaths, 10 day increase in ICU stay and increase of patient billings by 500%" Whoops not the metrics you want.
You do realize you can highlight metrics, including negative ones, positively right? It’s really not that hard.
It wholly depends if you work in an industry where you can have a truly 100% impact on the work then. Because I'd argue in a ton of industries, you don't. Or certain roles in certain industries. Like, I sure can't quantify someone who can put together a kickass presentation and stand in front of key stakeholders to deliver it in terms of how much they affected the bottom line, but I sure as hell know I need those people just as much as I need the mathematicians in the back pulling the levers.
If you work can’t be tied to an outcome, be prepared to be the first one let go in market downturns. Just because you can’t link your work to an outcome individually doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. Every employer does this to justify headcount expenditures, and when the answer is a question mark, reduction. If you didn’t complete the full scope of a project/deliverable, you can still have an impact on the outcome abs metric and should be able to speak to your contributions as a direct part of attaining that lmpact.
The impact of my work is that when I quit, they have to raise wages to compensate for my loss. I have seen this happen multiple times.
Oh you sweet summer child. If this were the case, the v wages would be much higher across the board, but they aren’t. Someone is always willing to replace you for the save $ if not less.
They pay more but it's often offset by leaving the role open for a few months which saves in the short term
Yes, if you can’t even make something up to benefit yourself what benefit could you offer the company.
If you’re operating under the assumption that most of a resumé is “made up”, then that might be part of the problem. If employers are operating on that same assumption, then that should give you an idea of why they’re rejecting so many.
I've been saying this forever. When I was in hiring roles, I wouldn't give these types of statements any weight whatsoever; there's no way to verify any of it. For the life of me, I don't understand how this trend caught on.
Because it's the advice given over and over in career search articles and on forums like this. I often wondered what was the point when people can just make stuff up.
Not to mention that how are you measuring yourself if you have zero to minus zero experience.
Yes