3

The Art of Insightfulness in Practice: How to Write a Great Resume

It would be appropriate, at this point, to pause and go through an all-encompassing example that will demonstrate exactly how the concept of insightfulness is realized and achieved in practical terms. I will do so through a detailed, step-by-step description of a personal example. I will ask you to think alongside me yet to form your own thoughts and conclusions before I reveal mine. This way you’ll be able to compare what you would have done under the same circumstances to what I did. This will give you a greater sense of how easy it is not to see the obvious, and how nuances turn into critical observations. It will also demonstrate the corollary: just how easy it is to become more insightful—it is nothing but using pure, simple logic.

The example involves the art of resume writing, where I was instrumental in changing a long-standing practice and “common wisdoms,” which led to a new trend that spread like wildfire (although I’ll never be given credit for it, since nobody ever knew how it all started). In addition, you will also learn how to write a great resume.

Before we walk through the example, let’s recap the key elements of being insightful:

An ability to observe situations, evaluate all the relevant information, discern the true nature of things, and attain a perspective that helps reach and/or influence a correct evaluation and decision, and do so in a consistent manner.

The definition clearly suggests that insightfulness refers to a process that requires deeper, more refined thinking to help discern the true nature of things. It requires us to look beyond the obvious and pay attention to the subtleties and nuances. It is done through collecting the right information, framing more precisely the desired outcome, and drawing the correct conclusions. It is an iterative process, not a flash of brilliance.

Before we take a deep dive into the example, I’d like to point out another rule for insightfulness, which will play an important role in getting the most out of this example. The rule has two parts:

1.The best insight can be achieved when one correctly understands the “what,” “why,” and “how” of a situation—all three!

2.Complete understanding is accomplished through an iterative process of constantly refining and narrowing the focus of the three questions above.

Again, the first rule may appear obvious and self-evident, but it is not. You would be surprised at how often people fail to do so. People understand one or two aspects in the first rule, but generally don’t always understand all three. Many times, when they think they do, their understanding is incorrect. To me, the above rule reflects on how deep or shallow one’s thinking is, which also reflects on the conclusions one reaches. The understanding-it-correctly part generally reflects on the accuracy of the data one uses. Keep this rule in mind when going over the following example.

I graduated from the Wharton School of Business with an MBA in 1977. I had to write a resume to submit to prospective employers for an intern summer position after the first year, and for full-time employment upon graduation.

To preface this example, I need to explain the state of technology in those days. There were no personal computers, no networks, and no word processing software. Documents and letters were typed on a typewriter, and there were no special fonts. Typos or changes, if minor, were corrected by using a white paste called Wite-Out and retyped over. More major changes required a retyping of the document.

Resumes at the time had a “standard” format. They provided the reader with detail of one’s work and education history, and some noteworthy personal things, like hobbies, military service, distinctions, honors, and so on. The most common length was between two and four densely typed pages, depending on the length of one’s experience. The content was organized into four categories: Objective, Work Experience, Education, and Personal. If one didn’t have much work experience, like graduating students, then Education was displayed first. Below is what my first resume looked like at the time:

DAVID KRONFELD 1310 Spruce Street, Apt. 224 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
OBJECTIVE: A fulfilling job that utilizes my MBA skills. I would like to work in Strategic Planning, Marketing, or Finance for a company that can offer strong career advancement. My goal is to reach executive level management, over time.
WORK HISTORY:
(9/1974 – 4/1975)	Sammons Enterprises, Dallas, Texas
	Title: Vice President of Systems
	Responsibilities: As Vice President I was responsible for 12
	System Analysts and 35 Programmers. I was responsible for all the development and maintenance of Sammons’ data processing systems. As such I worked with the Presidents and General Managers of 8 different business divisions that comprised Sammons Enterprises. In this capacity I learned to understand all the workflows in their respective companies and departments; helped identify which data needed to be recorded and which management reports they needed; and developed such automated capabilities into our computers.
	Accomplishments: When I joined the company, Data Processing had a terrible reputation. The computer that ran at night failed at least a few times a week, failing to have the necessary management and department reports ready for workers in the morning, causing significant productivity issues companywide. Additionally, any request for changes in reports or new reports took months and months to deliver, which was completely unacceptable to our “clients.” After only a short period of time I was able to correct both problems to the complete satisfaction of all our clients, companywide.
(8/1973 – 9/1974)	Electronic Data Systems Corporation, Dallas, Texas
	Title: Senior System Analyst
	Responsibilities: I was part of a team that was responsible for the development and maintenance of all Data Processing needs of clients. As such, I constantly interacted with the different departments in trying to understand what data recording and management reports they needed to better conduct their business. As part of my work, I was assigned to different teams at different times. I worked most heavily on accounting and payroll systems. My clients were Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas and Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New York. I interacted heavily with the heads of the accounting and payroll departments.
	Accomplishments: I was recognized as an excellent worker by my management and twice called into the Vice President’s office for accommodations and “special” bonus awards. One was an extra cash bonus; the other was a one-week all-expenses-paid vacation for me and my wife. I subsequently was promoted to be an instructor in the company’s “school.” The company was exclusively hiring long-term U.S. military officers, and over a period of six months these officers were taught Computer Programming and Systems Analysis.
EDUCATION:
(8/1975 – Present)	The Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
	Major: Finance.
(8/1971 – 5/1973)	Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey
	Degree: Masters in Computer Science.
(8/1971 – 5/1973)	Stevens Institute of Technology
	Degree: BS in Electrical Engineering with high honors.
PERSONAL: Married, no children. Tau Beta Phi Honor Society. Military service in the Israeli Armed Forces from 1966 to 1969.

My resume and those of other students were collated in the Wharton resume book, which was made available, upon request, to potential employers. Companies would come on campus to interview students through the school’s placement office. In advance of the interviews, the placement office provided resumes to companies for those students who had expressed a desire to be interviewed by them. The number of requests for interviews far exceeded the number of interviews that were made available to students, so the companies would narrow down the field of applicants. The companies also looked through the resume book to see if they would like to initiate an interview request with a student who didn’t sign up for an interview with them. Students were waiting breathlessly to be selected and go through the interview process. About 10 percent to 20 percent were able to land a summer internship job, and over 90 percent found a permanent job upon graduation.

I had some previous experience in job interviews, but for engineering positions, not highly sought-after career positions. I must have gone through at least five iterations in writing my resume, with constructive comments from the placement office and several second-year students, before finalizing the above resume. I waited anxiously for the process to begin.

The interviewing process was an interesting and an eye-opening experience for me. I learned quite a bit from the process. There were many observations I made, but one specifically stood out in my mind regarding the resume. I decided to make appropriate adjustments to my resume the following year, upon graduating and seeking full-time employment.

The following year I submitted a nonstandard-looking resume to the director of the placement office. He looked at me with a strange expression and simply said, “No, it doesn’t make sense!” We had about an hour of a very lively conversation where I challenged him with “Why not?” I was adamant about my intent to submit a nonstandard resume and would not accept no for an answer.

To his credit, despite his initial consternation he was reasonably patient with me and tried to answer my challenging questions and observations as best he could. The conversation continued over the following days. His objections centered around two concerns. The first was the departure from the standard format of the resume, which might not bode well for the school. The second was that he believed that deviating from the standard would reflect badly on me and significantly detract from the attractiveness of my candidacy. His logic was that anything different from the accepted standard would be subject to scrutiny and raise concerns that I might be looked upon as a “rebel,” and as such the type of person who may be disinclined to follow the rules. In his opinion, those aspects would likely be fatal to my candidacy.

I explained why I still wanted to do it my way, and why I didn’t believe the implications would be as dire. After several conversations, he relented, mostly because I semi-convinced him that it wouldn’t be that much of a departure in substance from the standard information provided in resumes, and that I was perfectly willing to assume full responsibility for the outcome. It would be illuminating to share some of that conversation. But first a bit of a background story and why I wasn’t all that concerned about his “expert” observations and the dire warning of how this might be interpreted by potential employers. I had lost confidence in just how wise his previous advice had been.

As part of our training and preparation, the placement office offered tutorial classes on how to write a resume and do well in the interviewing process. (Older students also shared their war stories and tips about being interviewed.) There wasn’t much to be said about the writing of the resume—standard format and information, with very little opportunity for any deviation. Most of the observations and recommendations the tutors made were related to the interviewing process and the interviews themselves. These recommendations were logical and appeared reasonable to me. To sum it all up, employers were looking for the “best, smartest, and brightest,” but not just in terms of “brainpower”; they also emphasized that other dimensions, such as our character, personality, leadership capability, and so on, were just as important, if not more so. The tutors revealed the kind of different techniques that were used in interviews to arrive at those conclusions. Most of those discussions were of value and provided insights we were not aware of.

However, there were two specific recommendations that the tutors emphasized and wanted us to follow:

•“Show that your interest in working for the company is very high.” The reason given was that companies don’t want to hire somebody who may later leave them. Thus, showing that we would be dedicated employees was critical. We were told that we needed to demonstrate it with actions, not just words, and that the interviewer may test us by asking simple questions to see whether we knew some basic things about the company. So, we were to learn all we could about the company ahead of the interview.

•“Study the company’s financial statements and come up with some ‘insightful’ observations to impress the interviewer with how smart you are, and how you can take what you learned at Wharton and apply it in the real world.” The tutors pointed out that it would also be a good way to further demonstrate the previous point above. They said that a great way to bring it up would be through a question, when we were given an opportunity during the interview to ask questions.

Now, look at the above observations and recommendations closely. They make a lot of sense, are very reasonable, and perfectly logical. Or are they? Can you form an opinion as to whether they are right and the advice I was given was solid? Take a couple of minutes to think about it and ask yourself whether it is the same advice you would pass on to others, now that it has been revealed to you.

I launched into the interview process with great enthusiasm and felt that I was well equipped to deal with anything and everything. I had many interviews and subsequently observed many things on my own. Most were consistent with what I was taught by the tutors, but some were not. There were two observations I made regarding the two important recommendations mentioned above. Almost none of my interviews were conducted in a way in which the interviewer specifically looked to substantiate any of the above two points, nor did I have a chance to bring them up myself. The two times I forced the issue, the response almost made me fall out of my chair.

I studied the financial statements of a large conglomerate—a well-known company with great name recognition and a great reputation, and one for which I would have really liked to work. I spent a lot of time studying the company. I went through the financial statements diligently. I applied ratios to the numbers, just as we were taught in class, and identified three pertinent questions to ask. So, in my first initial interview and subsequently on the following round of interviews, when asked whether I had questions, I said that I had and proceeded to the first question on my list. I said, “I studied the company’s financial statements in detail and noticed that for its division X, revenues went down since last year by 8 percent, but the gross margins went down by even more, 12 percent. What accounted for it, and how is the company planning to address it?” Genius, eh?

The interviewer looked at me, puzzled and disapproving. “I have been with the company for only one year and am working in a completely different division. How do you expect me to know the answer to your question?” I am a quick learner and took note of it. I was smarter in the second interview.

During the second interview, I asked a different question—this time about the overall margin deterioration for the whole company, not a mere division. The response was less dramatic, but I felt just as stupid. The answer was, “Well, to tell you the truth, I work for the marketing department, and this question may be more appropriate to ask of somebody in the finance department.” I began to lose all confidence in the placement office. I decided to find out on my own how the interviewing process really works and what was important.

In all subsequent interviews, whenever I had an opportunity, I asked in subtle ways questions about the process to learn as much insight on my own. Some of the interviews were over lunch or dinner, which permitted more informal time to explore the topic in more depth. I came up with an effective line as to why I was asking those questions, without, in my view, coming across as presumptuous or seeking positive feedback. I first asked, “Would you terribly mind if I asked you a couple of general questions about the interviewing process? I have no experience in the matter, and it would help me a great deal in my future search for a job to have a better understanding.” Not a single person refused. They were all too happy to give me good advice. There was no question that would be inappropriate to ask, either negative or positive. What I learned caused me to decide to change my resume, to depart from the standard form and format.

Back to my discussions with the director of the placement office about changing the resume. I already told you that he objected on two grounds. The first was the departure from the standard resume, which might not bode well for the school. The second was that not using the standard form would raise concerns that I was going to be unruly.

I begged to differ. I was fully prepared to engage in a debate. I felt that I understood better the rule of insightfulness I mentioned earlier: the “what,” “how,” and “why”—all three!

I asked him to explain to me what purpose, in his mind, a resume served. He was shocked. “What do you mean?”

I said, “It is a very serious question; please give me an answer.”

With a puzzled expression he gave an immediate response: “What do you mean? It is to give employers all the information about you!”

I continued, “And why does the employer need to have this information?” Now, he was frustrated. “How else would he be able to make a decision whether they want to hire you or not?” I got him!

I said, “Okay, if that is the case, then why does the employer have to spend hours with me, arranging for multiple people and multiple interviews in order to decide whether to hire me or not?”

He said, “What do you mean? They need to confirm everything.”

I responded, “Absolutely, but then the resume is not used to decide whether to hire me or not. The interviewing process does!”

“What are you getting at?” he asked.

“Simple,” I said. “The purpose of the resume is not to get you a job offer; the purpose of the resume is, first and foremost, to get you an interview! Without an interview, you never get an opportunity for a job offer.”

“It’s one and the same,” he said. “What is the difference?”

I said, “Well, if it is to get an interview, then the best question to ask is what kind of a resume will increase your probability of being invited on an interview, and the answer may suggest a completely different resume.”

He was pensive and asked me to point out the differences. I continued and explained everything in great detail and pointed out the differences.

“I don’t know,” he said at the end. “It sounds pretty compelling, but something just doesn’t feel right.” (This just goes to show how hard it is to change “common wisdoms,” even with compelling logic!)

I pointed out to him that I was willing to assume the risk and overall that my resume “was not really that much different from the standard information provided—the formatting is just a little different.” He agreed to accept the resume.

Have you paid attention to how the “what” and “why” changed here? What is the purpose of the resume changed from giving complete historical information to . . . something different (yet to be discussed). The why changed from giving all the information so that a potential employer could determine whether to make an offer, or even want to interview us, to simply increasing the probability of being asked on an interview. The how to do it will be discussed next. But, once we change the initial “what” and “why,” it is easier to see which other questions and conclusions may follow. As suggested, it is an iterative process.

Back to the example. I’d like for the purpose of the exercise to place you in my position at the time. I’ll provide all the relevant information I was able to get from my questions and my own observations of what took place during the various interviews. Subsequently, I’ll ask you to see what conclusions you would draw from them, and then I’ll give you mine, for comparison. This hopefully will give you the most out of this exercise.

Here are the observations, not necessarily in order of importance, and they may not be mutually exclusive and can be even contradictory to some degree. All the initial observations are applicable to entry-level positions, the type of position one is hired for upon graduation. Obviously, they may be different for non-entry positions. All the observations relate to how the interviewing process works and how the initial reviewer of the resume decides whether to grant an interview or invite one to an interview. The dynamics in the interview sessions themselves will follow.

•The initial screeners, who were responsible for deciding which candidates were to be interviewed, rarely read a resume in its entirety because of the sheer volume of resumes. If something catches their attention, or they want more clarity, they may read some parts more carefully than others.

•On average they spend between twenty to thirty seconds per resume on the initial pass. Perhaps another minute or so if they want to refocus on something on a second pass.

•They generally look for proven “brainpower,” proven track record, and other traits that imply to them that the candidate will be a good addition to the company.

•They look at the overall reputation of the schools the candidate has attended and the grades they earned to determine proven brainpower. They look at how reputable the companies are that hired the person in the past. The interviewers assume that the better the reputation of the company, the smarter the candidate. They also look to the candidate’s career promotions as proven ability to perform well at work.

•They look for any negatives or flaws. The most common mentioned were time gaps in employment and education, short-tenure jobs, job-hopping, and “anything else that jumps out at me,” as they said. However, there was one fatal thing that would most likely generate immediate rejection—typos and grammatical errors. The logic was that if you didn’t pay attention to them in something as important as your own resume, how could you be trusted with other things?

•When asked about how they decide whether to proceed with a specific candidate, they all said that they have some “standards,” below which they will not move forward, and those who pass their “standards” are ranked along with other candidates, and only the “best” candidates would progress.

•The interviewers make their decisions about the candidate from what they observed in person during the interview. What is said in the resume itself becomes pretty moot at that point.

•Generally, multiple people interview a candidate, separately, in each round. At the end, they get together and rank the candidates they saw and decide which candidates should be invited to the next round.

•A different team is assigned for each round of interviews. Each team gets the resume of the candidate, but generally not any notes and perceptions from previous rounds.

•With each subsequent round of interviews, the list of candidates gets smaller, and more senior people get involved interviewing the candidates.

My observations were the product of asking multiple questions. Now, think as to whether you would have asked the questions and followed up with the kind of questions that would have yielded the same information.

I also thought that understanding what specifically they liked, or didn’t, about me as a candidate was important, and so I asked those questions as well. Here, I had to be very careful, because people, in general, don’t like to answer such questions. There was also a great risk that I might come across as an unconfident person seeking reassurance or, even worse, as an arrogant, presumptuous person who makes a habit of asking inappropriate questions in interviews. But I was careful as to how I framed my questions. Here are the observations I made; some were even a complete surprise to me.

•At the beginning of practically every interview, the interviewer took some time to skim through my resume and started to ask questions about some information that somehow caught their attention, just to break the ice. The information they focused on appeared to be somewhat random. I got the distinct impression that it was the first time the interviewer had read or at least attentively focused on my resume.

•After the initial questions, some interviewers continued to use the resume to guide the process, others did less so, and some never bothered to pay more attention to the resume. There was no apparent pattern and it was impossible to predict what questions and format the interviewer would take. I was frequently challenged with “case study analysis.” Each interviewer devised their own case study. Some asked me to pick one from my past work experience or one that we studied in class, and we discussed it together.

•In general, interviewers were impressed with the fact that I was a student at Wharton and had two degrees in engineering. In their mind it proved that I was uniquely smart, capable, and offered great potential. Very few engineers pursued an MBA in those days. I was told that most MBA students came from non-quantitative backgrounds and were not very comfortable with “numbers.” The business world requires substantial logic, analyses, and an analytical approach to problem solving. Obviously, those with engineering and other quantitative backgrounds, like math, physics, and so on, are much more adept with applying numbers. In fact, I was told that this quantitative analysis caused a real problem and presented real challenges for some MBAs.

•They liked that I attained and was promoted to a position of vice president, because it clearly indicated proven capability.

•They hadn’t noticed initially that I earned two separate degrees with high honors, bachelor’s and master’s, at the same time. But when, during the interview, they realized this, they were immensely impressed. “You must be exceptionally smart,” they said. (By the way, did you notice it?)

•They hadn’t paid attention to it initially, but when during the interview they learned that Electronic Data Systems Corporation was actually EDS, a company widely considered successful, with one of the greatest reputations, they were very impressed. Everybody knew that EDS attracted and hired only the best talent.

•In general, the interviewers didn’t go too deeply into my work experience and specific responsibilities. When I asked why not, I got a consistent answer: My past work experience would have little bearing on what I would be doing in the future, since I would be starting at an entry-level position and utilizing completely different skills.

•On the negative side, they were concerned about my short tenure at EDS and specifically at Sammons Enterprises, which was only six months. It made them nervous about whether I would be a long-term employee or a job-hopper.

Okay, you now have all the relevant information. What would you conclude from what you have read? More importantly, would any of my observations lead you to consider making changes to your resume? If so, what kind and specifically how? Lastly, again the same question, would you have initiated the kind of questions that would have given you the same observations I made? Please take some time to really think about it, and perhaps write them all down. Next, I’ll share how I dissected all the above, for comparison.

Below I enumerate my reasoning and conclusions. The entire purpose of this example is to provide a “live” exercise to demonstrate what being insightful is, and how readily it is available to everybody. Part of insightfulness is to see “deeper” into facts, thereby drawing conclusions that may escape others. In my opinion, it is one dimension (of course, not the only one) that separates the more insightful person from the less insightful, as it pertains to the shallowness of the observations and conclusions. Clearly, some of being insightful reflects innate brainpower, but one doesn’t need to be a genius to be more insightful; we are not talking about complicated scientific topics. Practically everybody can do it, if they are aware and willing to spend the extra time to think.

It’s been my experience that people are lazy when it comes to making observations and drawing conclusions. Most people exposed to the same facts will tend to focus on what appears to them to be more relevant, perhaps the most obvious, and draw the “more important” conclusions and stop there. Others, the more insightful, less lazy thinkers, may expend the extra mental energy to seek deeper interpretations, to check whether other things may be important, as well. Often there might be nothing to see, but if there were, then insightfulness emerges. As you read my analyses below, please pay attention to the granularity of the thought process and conclusions drawn. I’m bringing this point up not to boast about my capability, but rather to point out that insightfulness is not necessarily a flash of brilliance. Instead, it is a natural outcome of deeper, logical, step-by-step observations and analyses, or what commonly is referred to as analytical thinking. It is a process of constant analyses as one thought leads to another or raises a question, and the answer to that question leads to a conclusion, and so it continues, yielding a better, more complete understanding of the problem/challenge. This is the process of becoming more insightful!

The first observation that I made was that the interview process is divided into two phases. The initial phase is mostly the “elimination” phase, and the second phase transforms almost imperceptibly into a “selection” phase. The process of elimination starts with the initial decision of whom to accept for an interview and continues through the initial rounds of the interviews. This phase is characterized by more rudimentary “go, no-go” decisions and relies more on the interviewer’s quick perception. During this phase, the candidates are vulnerable to the interviewer’s quick judgments based on shallow and somewhat unsubstantiated, or uncorroborated, observations. With each round of interviews, however, more robust information is collected. But the main purpose is still to eliminate some candidates. This process works better in the earlier stages, since the difference between the better and worse candidates is more apparent. As the list narrows with attrition, the challenge becomes much greater, particularly among the candidates who are just above and below the cutoff line. As this process continues, the list gets narrower until it is brought down to a subset of desirable candidates who are considered worthy of a job offer. At that point the process changes minutely into the selection phase, which is a much tougher phase. Here the interviewers are much more probing and begin to apply a different logic to decide on the final candidate who will receive a job offer.

Can you think of what the importance is in this observation?

In my mind there are a couple of important observations. First, the resume plays a role at the very beginning of the process and much less so as the interviewing cycle progresses. Second, this substantiates what I stated in the previous paragraph. The process of elimination implies comparison to others, which further implies competition with others, which further implies that differentiation is the key. So, when looking at creating a resume, the most important factor is not to give the complete information that might be conventionally expected, but rather to give enough information that appears complete but focuses on how a candidate would like to differentiate themselves from other candidates. As I mentioned, I was told that the fact that I was a Wharton student was impressive, but the additional fact that I had an engineering background was a huge differentiating factor for me. Third, one needs to be mindful that the criteria used by the “judges” change from one phase of the interview to the next phase. (I will not elaborate on this point in this section. I devote a whole section to this specific topic later in the book.)

Back to my main observations. The people who read the resume mostly skim through it, which clearly implies that there is a probability that they may miss factors that the aspiring candidate feels would make them stand out. Conversely, the interviewer may pick up on information the candidate may think unfavorable. It may appear as a simple observation, but the implications are far more reaching.

One implication is simpler to understand; the other is much more nuanced but just as important. I’m pointing it out now because it will play a key role subsequently. The simpler implication to understand is that, at the beginning of the process, when resumes are used to decide on inviting a candidate to an interview, missing a positive differentiating aspect and/or focusing on a negative aspect is critical, as there is little room and opportunity for recovery. The other implication is more subtle but important.

I mentioned earlier that during interviews, some of the interviewers would look at the resume to pick the next topic of conversation. In those interviews, the above point becomes quite relevant. If the interviewer quickly looks at the resume and happens to notice a positive differentiating attribute and focuses the conversation in that direction, then that would be valuable. But what if the interviewer happens to pick a neutral fact, or worse, a slightly negative one? Then valuable time of a short interview is spent discussing things not to your advantage, decreasing your opportunity to differentiate yourself successfully. I refer to the second phenomenon as an opportunity lost. It is subtle, because it is not as apparent. It is subtle because one would rarely think about the fact that it could have been avoided. The same will work on the positive side; there could be an opportunity lost where a better outcome could have been created. This is another one of those terms that I’ll keep mentioning throughout the book, because I believe it receives little recognition from many people and it can enhance one’s ability to be insightful.

Back to the original point of observation, that only a small portion of the resume is read. Naturally, this raises a key question: Is there a way we can increase the probability that the reader will not miss what we want them to observe, and if so, how? As soon as one asks this question, a host of other observations, thoughts, and questions arise, thus yielding an iterative process.

Clearly, there are several ways by which we can address the above question:

•Make the resume as succinct as possible. The fewer the words, the less likely that important information will be overlooked. Different interviewers may look at different parts of the resume or seek different information from it. Also, the information sought may change as the interviewing process progresses, and other “secondary” things may be used in the process of elimination. Thus, although succinct, it should give reasonably complete information on one’s background. But it clearly follows that a succinct resume has advantages.

This raises another observation. If we only knew better what the reader would be looking for in the resume throughout the process, we could then be that much smarter about eliminating superfluous information from the resume. Thus, a new question arises: What are the things that really matter in a resume, because they would help differentiate us and increase the likelihood that the interviewers throughout the process will focus on the “right” topics? This question is a bit conceptual, and I’ll re-word it and break it up into two separate questions to give clearer directions as to what one may need to actually do to find answers: (i) What do the interviewers really look for throughout the process?; and (ii) What else, if anything, would we like them to see or notice? Answer these questions and your resume will end up being much more effective. I address this topic elsewhere in the book as well.

•Avoid, if possible, small, dense paragraphs, which are the toughest to quickly skim through.

•A single page is easier to skim through than multiple pages. In reality, second and third pages get the most cursory look, if any at all.

Thus, the first conclusion I drew was to reduce my resume to a single page, no matter what. This could be accomplished by only giving the most important and revealing information and eliminating completely the information that is given for the sake of completeness. In other words, the resume need not have all the information about you, but rather only the important information that is necessary and used throughout the process—maybe a nuance, but a substantial departure from the common wisdom!

Okay, let’s continue with the analysis. If one quickly scans a document, one will tend to do it from the top-left side of the page and move down to the bottom, which means: (i) Whatever is written on the top left will be given most attention and focus and therefore will likely be most noticed; and (ii) As the reader moves down the page, the reader reads less, and the eyes begin to scan more. Thus, there is a greater probability not to notice things as you go down the page. I drew two conclusions from this observation. First, put the more differentiating aspects at the top, if possible, and place the most important information on the top left.

The third aspect was the extra credibility and credit I got for being “bright” when the interviewers learned that I had earned two degrees in parallel, which they initially missed. All of the interviewers’ comments were rooted in my education. So, I decided to switch the order in my resume and start with the education at the top, as opposed to the work experience, another departure from the standard format and common wisdom. In the same vein, I bolded Wharton so that it jumped off the page. I created a separate line under the “Distinction” to emphasize that both degrees were earned at the same time. Additionally, and in accordance with the above logic, I moved the dates to the right side as they were comparatively trivial, another departure from the standard.

Next, I asked myself whether there was anything else I could manipulate on the page that would immediately draw a reader’s eye. I decided that I would use physical techniques to highlight different parts of the resume, through using different fonts, bold-typing, bullet points, spacing, and so on. None was possible with a standard typewriter and therefore would require going to a printing house with typesetting capabilities, as done with books. This would be a very expensive proposition, but I believed it would end up being a great investment for my job search.

Next, I asked what in my resume was negative. I was told that my short tenure at work—particularly the six months at Sammons Enterprises—was viewed somewhat negatively. I decided to address it in three ways. First, the dates went from the left side to the right side. Second, I used light-shaded font as opposed to the standard font, so it caught less attention. Third, I changed the format and eliminated giving the months of work experience throughout the resume, thereby giving the impression that two years are involved whenever the year changes. In addition, instead of the end date for Sammons Enterprises I inserted the words “Until admission to Wharton,” which everybody accepted as a good, valid reason to leave employment—another departure from standard!

See the following page for the revised resume.

David Kronfeld

1310 Spruce Street, Apt. 224

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

TeI. (555) 555-5555

Objective: A fulfilling and challenging job in the area of Strategic Planning, Finance, and Marketing.

Education:

The Wharton School of Business Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1975–Present)

Degree: MBA, Finance

Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, New Jersey (1970–1973)

Degrees:	(1) Masters, Computer Science
	(2) BS, Electrical Engineering—High Honors
Distinctions:	Both degrees earned in same 3-year period. Tau Beta Phi, an honor society in recognition of highest academic achievements.

Experience:

Sammons Enterprises Dallas, Texas (1974–until admission to Wharton)

Title: Vice President, Systems

Responsibilities: Responsible for 12 System Analysts and 35 Programmers. I was responsible for all development and maintenance of Sammons’ Data Processing systems. As such, I worked with the Presidents and General Managers of 8 different business divisions that comprised Sammons Enterprises. In this capacity, I learned to understand all the workflows in the respective companies and departments, and helped identify which data needed to be recorded and which management reports clients needed, and developed such automated capabilities in our computer systems.

EDS (Electronic Data Systems Corporation) Dallas, Texas (1973–1974)

Title: Senior System Analyst

Responsibilities: I was part of a team that was responsible for the development and maintenance of all Data Processing needs of clients. As such, I constantly interacted with the different departments in trying to understand what data recording and management reports clients needed to better conduct their business. I was subsequently promoted to be an instructor in the company’s “school.” The company was exclusively hiring long-term U.S. military officers, and over a period of six months these veterans were taught Computer Programming and System Analysis.

Personal: Military service in the Israeli Armed Forces. (1966–1969)

The resume ended up being a huge success. I was never passed over for an interview I wanted. Many companies that came to Wharton to interview students, and which I didn’t sign up with, called the placement office and asked to see if I’d be willing to interview with them, a fact that didn’t escape the placement office. The biggest bonus was somewhat indirect. Many interviewers commented on the nonstandard look of the resume. I said, “Well, it’s not random; there is some good logic to it.” They all asked me to explain what I meant, whether from being polite, curious, or truly wanting to understand. I took the opportunity to go over all the thought processes from beginning to end, which took a good five to ten minutes. Every interviewer was impressed with the insightful logic and analytical thinking. It allowed me to start my interview with a tremendous, unexpected positive differentiation. The rest of the conversation focused on exactly the things I was hoping would catch the interviewer’s attention. Mission accomplished!

I believe that the logic that was behind designing my resume left such a strong impression that, in two cases, I was introduced to a top executive who was ready to make me an offer.

I ended up having the most interviews on campus and received the most job offers. I was asked to interview with the local TV station about Wharton students’ success in getting great job opportunities. Needless to say, from that year on, a one-page resume, with bullet points, became the format recommended by the placement office.

As stated earlier, the new ideas and conclusions I brought forth have spread like wildfire and have since become the new standards imparted by placement offices and throughout the business world at large. As you have probably discerned by now, although the primary purpose of this example was to demonstrate how insightfulness is arrived at, I also used this specific example with a secondary objective in mind—providing you with the full original thinking and a more granular explanation and reasoning behind writing an effective resume, so that you will now be able to apply better, more refined judgment when you write your own resume. With this secondary objective in mind, I would like to point out two key observations.

First, the advent of Microsoft Word has made the task of writing a resume that addresses the visual parts of my observations easy to accomplish. At the same time, as stated, many of my conclusions have since become the new standard when writing resumes. So, a key question arises: How can one achieve “differentiation” when currently everybody may receive the same advice? The answer is quite simple. If the visual techniques no longer afford unique differentiation, then it follows that the differentiation can only be achieved by the actual content of the resume—what and how you include, or don’t include, in the resume. There is ample opportunity to achieve effective differentiation via the content and unique attributes, since everybody has a different background, experiences, and accomplishments.

Second, new “common wisdom” has emerged regarding the “content” of resumes, particularly for people with previous work experience and managers at all levels. In my opinion, some of the currently prevailing common wisdom regarding the content is flawed. I address this issue later, in section III, chapter eight, titled: “Nothing Is More Powerful Than to Prove a ‘Common Wisdom’ Wrong!” It provides additional observations and logic regarding resume writing for the more experienced professionals and managers at all levels, but would also be applicable to students with limited experience.