Category: Uncategorized

Postcard from Chicago…Be Yourself and Spread The Message

Sitting high above the Atlantic Ocean on my way back home from a whirlwind 48 hours in Chicago seems like a good time to reflect on what I heard, what I learned and what I’ll share when I get home.

I can’t really begin on the learning takeaways though without saying a big thank you to the committee who pulled off a wonderfully slick, well organised event in which everything happened as it should, when it should. From location to food, from drumsticks and dollar necklaces (you had to be there) to transportation and agenda, nothing was overlooked or left to chance. Massive thanks to Trish, Steve, Ben, Jason, Mark, Crystal and Joan.

A second big thank you to Nobscot, who provided the scholarship that enabled me to get there. I really enjoyed spending time with Laura who gave me a great insight into the organisation and its products.

There is a third big thank you…but more of that later!

So what did I take away? Well here are some of the things that initially stood out from the different tracks that I participated in, I’m sure there will be more later:

Employee Brand vs Employer Brand – it’s not enough to have one or two people, micro-celebrities if you like, who effectively are the employee brand in social media. Those who are blogging, tweeting and posting on Facebook about their organisations may be ambassadors, but you need more…it may well be down to those individuals to spread the word and encourage others to participate, though the word ‘encourage’ is probably the key as ask, suggest, cajole or demand may not get the required outcome! In terms of content, there was much debate across different tracks as to how companies can ensure that their employees are not putting a negative or misleading message about their employers into the public arena. There was much use of the word control (more on this later) and guidelines but personally I prefer the notion of ‘guiding principles’ and trusting your people to deliver a message that is honest and shows that you have talent who are thoughtful,  insightful and passionate.

Mobile working is still working – I helped facilitate the Mobile HR track and it soon became apparent that for HR the need to be mobile and visible to all your clients is paramount. It was interesting to hear of initiatives that encompassed mobile learning as well. We have the technology that means we can now operate from a variety of locations, yet there still seems to be a mindset that a day spent working ‘on location’ isn’t really a proper day’s work…several attendees would talk of an expectation that the ‘day job’ would somehow be done in the evening or at weekends! A lot of this can probably be dealt with by educating the office based functions…work isn’t something that you just do at a desk or in an office.

Don’t call it Social Media – call it anything but!! Communication, Social Learning, Information, Learning Library…many suggestions were made in an attempt to overcome negative connotations around ‘social media’ or ‘blogging’. The message I took away was that it was the information learned, and the contact made, that was the key…as we say time and again, social media is a platform through which we communicate. It’s the message, not how you get the message, which will bring others onto the platform.

Top Teamwork is often more important than Top Talent – a really interesting track on sports and the lessons that HR can learn left me with that thought. Steve Boese used basketball as the example…a moderately successful team became a great team by trading its star player (as per the measurable statistics) and replacing him with a not so star (by the stats) player. They key, the secret to this happening was that it wasn’t basketball ability alone but teamwork and team spirit that carried the team through.  A simple message, but so often overlooked in our day to day business lives…it’s not just about having star performers, but about having performers who make those around them perform too.

I hate the word CONTROL – seriously, I know I’m a libertarian but every time I heard the world control – control the message, control social media, need to control what employees say in blogs and on twitter, need guidelines  –  I felt myself get more agitated!! During one track I asked if we could just forget CONTROLLING social media and start EMBRACING social media! It’s my belief that if you try to control what people say, whether through a policy or strict guidelines, then you stifle the creativity and spontaneity that, I believe, are at the heart of social media. You need to trust your people…I know it can be tough in a company of, say, 30,000, as there will no doubt be some who will give a negative message, but I think that they will usually be outweighed by the ones who give a positive image. People do respect those who give them freedom of speech…drive it underground and  it then has the capacity to become more damaging.

Gen Y – I know I’ve written about this a lot in the past, and as always it was great to hear the irrepressible Sarah White talk so passionately and enthusiastically about her generation, but there was a difference this time…the format was much more conducive to debate. Previously Gen Yers were preaching their case and taking on the audience, but this time we had a panel of 1 Baby Boomer, 1 Gen X and 1 Gen Y and I certainly felt that more came out of it – less argument, more understanding. Certainly some great points were made around the shift in benefits, security and stability within companies which often gets lost in the ‘which generation is better’ format.

And the third big thank you??

To all the wonderful people I met and who all made me feel so welcome!! I was very privileged to meet some really intelligent, articulate thoughtful, genuine, honest, caring people and the thing that struck me most was…

…that everyone was exactly as I thought they would be!

For all the doubters and cynics around social media, those who believe that the message can’t be trusted, there was proof that if people are just themselves then their personalities will come through! Here were people who I only know through Twitter, blogging and Facebook and yet their characters and personalities were exactly the same as those that shine through the words they write (whether in 140 characters or longer) and the way they interact.

That was the biggest message of all for me…if everyone uses the platform as a conversation, a way to connect, share and learn, in the same way that they would do if it was face to face, then you can trust both the medium and the message.

Be yourself and spread the message.

I just can’t wait to do it all again…

Recruiters vs HR…It’s Tom & Jerry Time!!!

Recruiters vs HR…it’s as old as, well…the recruitment industry! Like cats and dogs, Tom & Jerry, there seems to be, in the UK certainly, this automatic default position of mistrust.

It’s reared its head again, with blogs appearing, including Bill Boorman’s guest post on Punk Rock HR, and no doubt discussions will be had at HRevolution.

Well I’ll let you in to a secret…it’s always been like this! Seriously, on my first day in recruitment, over 20 years ago, amongst the advice and on-job training I received about interviewing, cold calling and selling in candidates, I was told…

…ignore personnel; you don’t want to speak to them. They’ll ask you to send the CV through, then they’ll question you, and if you say that your candidate should to be interviewed, they’ll challenge you…

And it’s not changed!

As you read this there will be a rookie recruiter somewhere being told…don’t speak to HR, they’ll want an e-mail with reasons to justify the candidate, they’ll negotiate fees and keep you waiting…forget it, you’ve got targets to meet and you need to get your candidates on interview NOW!

In fact recruitment companies spend lots of money on training their consultants how to AVOID HR!

They’ll deny it of course, but the transactional sales model, which has been favoured by the majority of the recruitment industry for over 50 years, usually dictates that there isn’t time to follow PROCESS…

…which is what it’s all about in my opinion…HR makes recruiters justify what they are doing, asks them to follow a process, whilst the average recruiter ideally wants to phone a harassed, time-pressured line manager, with a candidate that they’ve found who they think is a perfect match, book an interview over the phone, push back on feedback and try to CLOSE THAT DEAL!

Not all Recruiters are like that, clearly…but then not all Recruiters dislike HR!! I have always developed relationships with HR, treating them as much my client as any line or hiring manager. One of the reasons I moved into HR recruitment was because of the strong relationships I had built.

We’ve all had times though when we don’t think HR gets it…a marketing recruitment colleague said to me the other day…”HR wasn’t sure, said they didn’t think the person was a good fit, but I persuaded them to send the candidate along to see the hiring manager who loved him and hired” …but I’m sure that HR would point to hasty hires by line managers who didn’t really follow a true recruitment process, offering little selection and engagement. In my colleague’s example HR did set aside their initial view for the wider good of the business.

Let’s face it, HR want to get the best talent, the best fit for their organisations, the people that will add value and be part of the company’s growth, whilst Recruiters are looking to place candidates.

HR are usually measured by many deliverables, of which talent acquisition and retention is just is one, whereas the vast majority of Recruiters are measured and judged by the number of deals they close.

It’s a bit apples and pears…cats and dogs…it can work, but in many cases that’s not always the same thing, not always the basis for a mutually beneficial relationship.

Many Recruiters have always tried to bypass HR (hate is a very strong word) and many HR professionals have always had a mistrust of recruiters who think they’ve found the most outstanding candidate that needs to be hired NOW before they disappear to another company.

I think it’s straightforward…HR like recruiters who make their job easier, who respect the role they play in their companies talent process and want to help them find the best talent. Likewise Recruiters like HR who value what they do, who give them the information that they need to identify the talent that companies want. A lot of the time this works fine, but then pressures of budgets, targets, misinformation and miscommunication sometimes kick in.

So rather than Recruiters thinking like HR and HR thinking like Recruiters why not try seeing each other’s point of view…why don’t HR spend time in their recruitment supplier’s offices, seeing how they work, how the consultants are managed, measured and rewarded, what the values and culture are…and why don’t recruiters spend some time in an HR department and find out what the talent proposition is, the engagement and the vision, what the budgets are, what pressures and priorities they work with, and get some feel for all the other things HR does.

Maybe, just maybe, they may even learn…to LOVE each other!!

Reasons To Be Cheerful…I’m Chicago Bound!!

I am so excited! I’m going to Chicago for HRevolution!!! And I can’t wait!

I’m honoured to have got a scholarship from Nobscot, a company whose products and services, and vision and values are genuinely impressive. Getting the chance to meet their CEO Beth Carvin, and spend time with her finding out more about what they do, will be an absolute highlight.

The whole buzz surrounding the event is electric…and I’m still 3,000 miles away! Seriously, some of the blogs I’ve already read have already created a real sense of anticipation, with the range of topics, track leaders and attendees truly awesome.

My introduction will be simple…

I’m Mervyn

I’m from England

I’m here to learn and to share

I’m a Recruiter

And I LOVE HR!!

(That’s right…I don’t want to scrap it, I don’t hate it…and as I’m an HR recruiter, they tend not to hate me either!)

With that out of the way I can’t wait to meet all my US HR Twitter pals and talk, engage, debate and learn about some really important and vibrant topics. Vicariously I think and talk about these issues every day, so the opportunity to listen and learn more from thought leaders, bloggers, futurologists and some really great, clued up HR pros is too good to miss!

Big, Big shout of thanks to:

Nobscot…for generosity and a mission to make the world a better place to work

The HR Evolution Team…for tirelessly putting this all together and making it happen

and

Twitter…hell, none of you would have known who I was otherwise!

See you Friday!!

It’s All About Me!….No It’s Not!

When I was a kid, and my dad took me to watch football, there was always etiquette if you wanted to leave your seat during the game. Whether you wanted to use the toilet, or get a coffee (in those days you could even go get a beer and bring it back to your seat to drink it!), you may be coming back to your seat late from the half time interval, or just leaving early. Whatever your reason, you waited for a break in play before asking the other people in your row to stand up. Could be a free kick, goal kick, maybe treatment for an injury, no matter what as long you didn’t inconvenience other people whilst they were watching the game.

It was courteous, it was polite and it showed respect.

I was thinking of those innocent times on Saturday whilst in my seat at the Emirates (home of Arsenal FC, for those who don’t know) as I stood up for the fifth time during the first few minutes of the second half to let a latecomer back to their seat. If I was lucky someone said ‘excuse me’ but in the main I was just expected to stand, even if I was concentrating on a particularly good passage of play. My enjoyment, which I had paid a lot for, was secondary to someone who couldn’t manage to get back to their seat in time for the re-start of the match.

And before I get smart answers, it’s not just at Arsenal this happens!…from cinemas to theatres to concert halls it’s the same story.

It used to be that it was the person who was being inconvenienced who was the important one in the situation, whereas now it’s the person doing the inconveniencing who takes control.

I guess it’s another example of an ‘it’s all about me’ kind of attitude which now seems to spill over into the workplace.

A snap poll of people around me:

How many people call and start talking, never ask if you’re free, just talk because it suits them?

How many people turn up for meetings really early…and expect to get seen then?

How many CVs get sent to clients without their owners being asked?

How many interviewers/interviewees don’t bother to give proper, meaningful feedback?

Meetings postponed at the last minute…

People not turning up for interview or appointments…

I’ll get back to you later…

IT’S ALL ABOUT ME!!! No courtesy, no politeness, no respect…

Go on…how many can you think of? Don’t want a grumpy old man/woman style rant…

…but let me know what inconsiderateness really bugs you in your day to day working life…

Simply The Best?…What Makes a Great Recruiter

Years ago I worked in sales recruitment. Every Friday we finished at 5pm and then sat in a circle and took it in turns to review our week. We gave ourselves a score out of 10 and then we each voted for our ‘Consultant of the Week’. Inevitably the most votes always went to the consultant who had made the most fees. Very occasionally the group would recognise the closing of a particularly difficult assignment, or the winning of a retainer against the odds, but those occasions were rare.

The biggest biller was always the best recruiter.

If someone said ‘he’s a good recruiter’ you knew they meant ‘he’s a big biller’

Times change…my sales recruitment experience was before e-mail, job boards, unprecedented boom and bust, and social media… so now I wonder

What makes a good recruiter in 2010?

Maybe it’s still the biggest biller? Other recruiters, managers and directors will still recognise the bottom line, the recruiter that not just hits their targets but surpasses them. During my years in recruitment to recruitment I often heard these people referred to as ‘billing machines’. I always found this an odd description, somehow dehumanised as if great recruiters are mechanical without compassion or emotion.

How about the most contacts or the biggest network…the Largest Community? Making placements historically pays the bills, but moving forward might we need to find other ways to monetise our networks? Great recruiters should build great relationships and it may well be that focusing on closing individual deals somehow turns attention away from the value of the wider network. A lot of effort goes in to developing relationships that may or may not result in a deal…information, knowledge, ideas, networking, introductions and referrals. If we cling to the traditional billing model are we in danger of giving away what we should monetize and trying to monetize what we should give away?

Perhaps it will be the best feedback, which should give rise to the most referrals? I’ve written at length how I am rewarded on feedback, and it would appear that a number of other recruitment businesses are adopting an element of client/candidate feedback in their incentive schemes. There’s little doubt that giving a consultative, positively different experience to candidates and clients, transparent and honest, managing expectations and delivering what you promise to the timescale you agreed, will result in recommendations and referrals…and there is no better client or candidate than one that has been recommended to you.

So who would you now salute now as being a great recruiter…?

The big biller….

The networking community builder….

The deliverer who gets the best referrals and recommendations…

There are those who would say that all 3 go together, that big billers will automatically be good networkers and deliverers, but I’m not so sure. During my time working in recruitment, especially when placing recruiters, I have met and worked with quite a few contingency ‘big billers’ and I have to say that often they aren’t the most engaging of people. Usually they are motivated by the deal, the commission, and their methodology can be quite transactional…many times I have referenced someone to be told that their relationship skills are somewhat lacking but they display a determination that pulls them through, often to the detriment of colleagues.

Interestingly, the recruiters who make the best matches, whose candidates succeed most in their new roles, aren’t always the biggest billers precisely because their placements stick. They get recommendations and referrals but their success often negates recurring business.

My view is that networking, community building and reputation will drive success in the future, as the traditional transactional sales model gets squeezed. For now, we still monetise what we do in the same way we always have however I believe that this will change.

Let me know what you think? Shoot me down or give me your own view…as recruiters and HR professional one thing I know we aren’t is shy!!

(This post originally appeared on RecruitingBlogs)

Listen Without Prejudice

Nick Clegg is suddenly a star! The leader of the Liberal Democrats is a front page face, a trending topic on twitter, and now has a facebook fan page –IagreewithNick. People listened to him in last Thursday’s leaders’ debate, some for the first time, and liked what they heard.

Why hadn’t they listened before? He’d been on TV every day last week so people heard him…but not many were listening. Many ordinary voters are encouraged to believe that we have a 2 party system…from print and broadcast media to the never-ending array of commentators, analysts and satirists who usually provide what passes for political debate, the notion of LibDems as a minority party is not only suggested but is assumed as fact. Even though 1 in 5 voters put their ticks in the LibDems box on Election Day – 1 in 5 hardly says ‘minority interest’ to me.

This time people listened, and heard things that struck a chord with them, saw ways in which Nick’s party may be able to play a part not just in the upcoming election but in a future government.

They Listened Without Prejudice…

They listened because all 3 party leaders were given equal billing and equal air time. For the first time Nick Clegg spoke not as a leader of a minority party but as someone the equal of the 2 other leaders.

I think there’s a big lesson here for Human Resources.

The future of HR, and the role that it can play in business, is forever under scrutiny and the subject of discussion and agonising. This debate raged again recently following an interesting blog from Bill Boorman entitled ‘Scrap HR’ which elicited the usual range of responses from the nodding agreement of non regular HR practitioners, to the traditional mix of defiant umbrage and/or hand wringing kvetching from those who earn their crust practicing HR.

To me, HR has the same problem as the Liberal Democrats…everyone thinks that they are fair game to take a pop at. Seriously, does anyone ever doubt the value of the finance department, legal team, IT department, sales, marketing, design, and supply chain?? Do their managers constantly debate the future value of what they do? Do Finance Directors need to push to get a seat at the table?

In fact, would anyone ever write a blog entitled Scrap Finance? Scrap IT? Scrap Sales??!

I’m vicariously an HR practitioner…not qualified to do it but I spend every day talking to people who do. And I’m always talking through their achievements, how they have made a difference and added value. And guess what? HR add tremendous value to businesses of all sizes. Re-organisations, restructures, transformations, talent development (acquisition and retention), performance management…all vital for business planning, future growth, cost savings and efficiency.

So I’m thinking that maybe, just like the ‘big’ political parties, it’s time for the ‘big’ corporate functions to give HR an equal platform. Listen to them not as a ‘minority’ function but as an equal.

Listen Without Prejudice…you may hear things you like!

Maybe it’s not Scrap HR…but Listen to HR

Imagine No Recruiters…I Wonder If You Can?

(This blog originally appeared on RecruitingBlogs.com, click here to see the comments that it attracted)

Every day I go over Putney Bridge on my way to work. This may seem like minutiae of my daily commute in South West London but a couple of weeks ago Putney Bridge became the focus for millions of people all over the world, as it does at the beginning of April every year. The reason?…it’s the starting point for the University Boat Race, and has been for 154 years.

Now you may think that two teams of amateur rowers from the UKs top 2 universities battling it out for 20 minutes over 4 ¼ miles is hardly a reason for so many people to be transfixed, and it has to be said that in the 21st Century I’m not sure of the event’s cultural and sporting significance, which makes me think…

…would anyone miss it if it wasn’t there?

Seriously, the rowing teams of the 2 universities would, some alumni of the universities would, and bar and cafe owners in Putney would…but who else? A lot of people watch it because it’s on and it’s a tradition…but traditions sometimes end.

How about 3rd party recruiters?

I was looking through the most recent figures in the UK from the REC (Recruitment & Employment Confederation) and see that in 2008/09 the total number of permanent placements was 582,803. We’ve got a full time workforce of 21.16 million and estimates of average staff turnover range between 10% and 20%…let’s take a conservative estimate of 15% which would mean 3.17 million job changes a year, of which only 18% were therefore through 3rd party recruiters.

It’s amazing to think that all the permanent recruiters are out there competing for about 20% of the job move market. Put another way, 80% of hires are NOT made through recruiters…that’s 4 out of 5. Sounds incredible doesn’t it?

Which makes me wonder…

…would anyone miss us if we weren’t there?

What do you think?

Would 80% of hiring processes remain unaffected?

Would the other 20% of clients/candidates find each other without us?

Could companies use the money spent on agency fees to create their own talent pool?

And how could we add value to the 80% who don’t use us?

I realise that I’ve used an estimate, but even if we revise upwards a bit and get nearer to 30%, that’s still a lot of hires (70%) not made through 3rd party recruiters.

So the question for perm recruiters is…

A lot of companies clearly don’t need us or use us…could the rest learn to live without us?

It’s a Selection Rejection Thing

“I nearly bought one of their products a few weeks ago. I’m glad I didn’t. Won’t be considering buying one again”

So said a candidate to me last week about a company whose brand extends into the High Street. Did he have a bad experience? Bad customer service? Was he let down by faulty workmanship?

Kind of..

He was a rejected candidate…he’d applied for a senior role, had 5 interviews including meeting most of the operating Board, giving a presentation, and also meeting a Director from a different division. At the final interview he had been promised a decision within 48 hours. When time was almost up he got a call saying that there was one more person he needed to speak to and a phone chat was scheduled for the next morning. At the end of that call he was promised a decision the next day, which was a Friday.

But he heard nothing. At 5.30 he put a call in (he reasoned that if there was still some doubts maybe he could assuage them) but got a voice mail. 

He got a call back on the Monday afternoon saying that no decision could be made, that the company had not found a strong enough comparison so were unable to commit. He was told that a member of the Board would call and explain more. 3 days later he still hadn’t heard.

He asked what I thought, and I said: ‘Some companies forget that rejected candidates are consumers and ambassadors for their businesses’

A lot of time is put in to the hiring processes…design, criteria, testing, offer, dialogue, giving the successful candidate a positive impression of the company…and I think it’s easy to short change the rejected candidate(s). In my experience there are 3 things that the unsuccessful candidate wants:

Clarity
About the interview process, the competition, the selection criteria, the TIMESCALE for both the process and the decision, and some indication of where they stand

Closure
What went wrong, why it went wrong, constructive feedback, is there an opportunity in another part of the business, is it worth applying in future or is this now a closed book

Communication
Clear dialogue with the business, preferably with someone that they met during the process, and most preferably with one of the decision makers, a workable timescale with phone calls made precisely when they are promised even if there is no definite news to convey

You can’t sugar coat the message, and you can’t hire everyone who wants to work for you, but candidates you interview do invest time, energy and emotion in your company, your brand, and deserve some recognition of this investment.

Treat them well because they are your potential consumers and your potential ambassadors…

(This post originally appeared on Recruiting Blogs…read the comments it generated here)

They Shoot Recruiters, Don’t They?

[tweetmeme]

This blog was originally posted on RecruitingBlogs – click here to see all the comments that were posted

Question for corporate recruiters and hiring managers…if a contingent hire goes wrong, which of these is likely to be at fault:

1)      The hiring and selection process?

2)      The onboarding and integration process?

3)      The recruiter who introduced the candidate?

Hands up who answered 3?

I ask this because I was told of a situation recently in which a client decided after 4 weeks that a candidate that had been hired was a bad fit and would have to be released. They asked the recruiter not just for a 100% fee refund but to cover the 4 weeks wages that they had paid too…their justification was ‘well you selected her’ to which the recruiter had replied ‘no, I presented her…you selected her’

At what point, I wonder, does the 3rd part contingency recruiter cease to be responsible for the success of their introduction?

We present candidates who we believe are as close a match as possible to what the client has briefed us to find, yet after this presentation the clients’ processes, over which we have no control and very little input, take over…interview process, selection criteria, offer, pre-joining communication, induction and onboarding, integration…that’s a whole lot of actions where something can go wrong that may influence the new employees ability to fit straight into the role and culture.

And what happens if an employee thinks that the company has misrepresented itself, its culture, its talent development agenda, the scope of the role offered? All these are often cited as reasons that people fail to settle and become disenfranchised early in their employment.

Most recruiters offer a refund/rebate facility and yet many employers feel the need to negotiate these more favourably. Why? This leads to the recruiting process starting from a position of negativity, of risk minimisation, as if you are almost expecting the hire to be unsuccessful. I did have a client once who laid down their terms for a rebate…100% for a 2 month period if the candidate proved to be unsuitable, but if it was the candidate who left, for any reason, then the company expected no rebate as they felt it was their responsibility to represent their business and culture, and the role and expectations, and the recruiter could not influence this.

I’ve rarely found another client willing to share the responsibility, which will, in effect, recognise that the hiring company has a large role to play in whether or not their new member of staff succeeds. Too often when an employee leaves within the first few months it is the recruiter who made the introduction who is held to account, but is this just an easy option? Would the hiring process be any different if the recruiter offered no rebate/refund?

Maybe it’s hard to say ‘How come we couldn’t keep this person, we went through a long interview process, bought them in and got the approval of the team, went through our usual induction programme…where did we go wrong?’ and easier to say ‘where did we get that guy from? Find out what the rebate is and tell them if we get another dud candidate from them then they’re not a supplier anymore’.

I know I can’t speak for all recruiters. I know that there are too many who abdicate their responsibilities of careful matching and selection, of getting to really know their clients and being able to add value to the hiring process, who don’t properly reference and check…yet there are many who do all of these things, and present strong candidates in good faith that their clients have robust hiring and induction processes in place to maximise the success of their new hires.

So I return to my original question of who or what is at fault if your new hire is unsuccessful. How many companies have an inquest when this happens? Supposing it is a direct hire or a referral, what would usually be the reason? And why is this different if the employee was introduced through a 3rd party recruiter?

Do you feel that there are times when we’re justified in saying…

…Don’t Shoot, I’m only the Recruiter

This Is Why You Should Hire Me! – Is Your CV a Sales Document?

This blog was originally posted on RecruitingBlogs – click to see the comments that were posted

No getting away from it, your CV is a sales document. Instead of typing the words ‘Curriculum Vitae’ or ‘CV’ at the top, put in ‘Why You Should Hire Me…’ and see how you write it. There’s little point just creating a list of duties or responsibilities; you will not get hired solely because of what you have done, but more because of what you have achieved within those duties and responsibilities, and how you can successfully build upon them and deliver in your next role.

Your whole CV should be your mission statement, your ‘This Is Me’ moment. It may be the door opener, getting you an interview, but when you get in front of a hiring decision maker you need a strong CV to present to. Written well, it can set the tone for an interview, manage expectations and enable you to play to your strengths.

When you write your CV, think about these 4 questions:

What are my biggest achievements?

Forget the CV format; just close your eyes and think of the 5 or 6 biggest achievements that have really meant something to you. They can be things that made a difference, or really stretched you out of your comfort zone, changed the way that the company did something, or required a lot of influencing. Whatever they are, they’ve got to be quantifiable achievements that will give whoever reads your CV an insight into how effectively you operate.

Where have I added value and made a real difference?

Too many CVs reflect a list of duties and responsibilities that look like they have been cut and pasted from a job description. You need to bring the CV to life, give it colour and substance, let anyone reading it know what you have done that really made a difference to your company. It doesn’t have to be a dramatic sea change, it can be something that simplified or enhanced a process that was already there.

What is most important to me about my job?

So many candidates list the ‘biggest’ duty under a job title. Invariably it will be something to do with managing people, or standing in for a senior colleague, or having taken a lead on a project, maybe around recruitment or talent. Whatever is listed first is quite often the thing that means most to you, the key achievement…you need to make sure that it’s relevant for the type of role that you want. There is little point listing management as your major responsibility or achievement if you aren’t looking to apply for a role involving management.

Why am I reading this?

Last question is not for the jobseeker, but for the person reading the CV. They’ve got a vacancy to fill and your CV has come to them, whether directly or through a third party. Why are they reading it? How does your CV fit with what they want? If they have to hunt for the clues and piece it together then chances are they’ll move on to the next one.

What do you think? What other questions should jobseekers ask themselves when they come to write their CVs?