8

Nothing Is More Powerful Than to Prove a “Common Wisdom” Wrong!

I use “common wisdom” to mean anything that is widely accepted as truth, and as such, common wisdom is rarely challenged. Business is rife with common wisdom. Some such “wisdoms” are generic, some situational, and some specific.

Common wisdom is expressed as a belief that may reflect reality and may indeed be true, but likewise it may not completely reflect current reality, or may even be false. In either case, a common wisdom is rooted in experiences that are passed on as “wisdom” from one person to another, from one generation to another, as true observations and conclusions. While a common wisdom may have started out as true, over the years things may change and some of those “truths” could change as well, and in subtle ways. Although somewhat transfigured, the “common wisdoms” may continue to be passed on as still being wise and true. Few challenge a common wisdom as something that may be somewhat flawed.

As I mentioned in the previous section, I was a business consultant with a premier strategic consulting firm, Booz Allen. Our job was to evaluate competitive situations, analyze market dynamics, and recommend strategies for companies to compete successfully. Needless to say, our work and our success were contingent on correctly analyzing and understanding what was really happening in the marketplace and what our clients’ competitors were up to. It was during those years that I was exposed to most of what I learned about insight. Our analyses were thorough and based only on facts. We utilized state-of-the-art techniques to arrive at sound conclusions. We spent an immense amount of energy focused on methods that led to truthful conclusions for our clients. As a result, we invariably ended up gaining knowledge and perspectives that were not so obvious to our clients, and oftentimes contradicted what the clients believed to be true. In other words, we consistently showed them new and different perspectives—new insights. The more insightful the analyses and conclusions, the more pleased the clients were. In fact, the differentiation of the premier consulting firms rested with their reputation for insightfulness. We were trained to evaluate things differently and look for a higher degree of understanding and perspective (aka insights). However, first and foremost, our perceptions had to be based on what was true in the marketplace, and something we could prove beyond any doubt. Our reputation and success were based on our ability to find those insights, prove them to be correct, draw the correct conclusions, and present them to the client, who hopefully said, “Wow, these are great, insightful analyses and recommendations.”

It was early on during my tenure with Booz Allen that a senior partner gave me great advice. He explained to me what a “common wisdom” was and said, “Always check the common wisdoms. You’ll be the greatest consultant if you can prove a common wisdom to be wrong, since that would come as the greatest revelation to clients, and the greatest insight you’ll be able to come up with.” I took it to heart and have never since accepted any common wisdom without first convincing myself that it still held true. It has proven to be a great asset throughout my career. I will discuss this topic later in the book in more detail, and will try to teach you the thought processes, creativity, comprehensiveness, and techniques necessary to enable you to do the same.

Meanwhile, I’ll conclude this chapter with an example that will vividly demonstrate, even to the inexperienced person, just how widespread flawed common wisdoms can be. It addresses the topic of resume writing and thus should also be considered a complement to what was already presented in chapter three, “The Art of Insightfulness in Practice: How to Write a Great Resume.” In addition, the example serves to offer another glimpse into how insightfulness is achieved through observing nuances, thinking out of the box, and using simple logic to draw different conclusions.

Example: How Not to Impress with a Resume!

About thirty years ago, a new common wisdom emerged regarding writing good resumes. The genesis was an observation that employers are looking for successful managers who can effectively and creatively manage employees to deliver real results and who are individuals of high morals and character. So, three conclusions emerged: (i) Make sure that you don’t just give your employment history in your resume, but focus on your accomplishments; (ii) Make sure to emphasize that you are a person of “action,” who possesses all the qualities required from a leader and a higher-level manager to effectively manage others and deliver superior results; and (iii) Show that you are a “good citizen” and involved in community affairs.

I would like to pause here to ask you to reflect on the above logic and conclusions. Do you agree or disagree with them? Will you use it yourself should you need to write a resume?

Obviously, the logic is reasonably compelling. We also know that it represents a long-standing, widely accepted common wisdom. Both argue that it therefore must also be true, no? My response: There is a difference between common logic and common wisdom, and insightful logic and insightful wisdom. Hopefully, this example will convince you of that.

On the following pages are a cover letter and resume, which I received over the transom and which is similar to thousands of other resumes I have seen over the last thirty years. Please read both and think about the positives and negatives (if any) you observe in them, and how you might revise them, if at all. Then I’ll give you my observations for comparison.

I would assume that most will view the cover letter and resume as being reasonably well constructed and effective. I would also not be surprised if most wouldn’t find many flaws in either, or discover only minor flaws. I’m not sure if you noticed, but from the third-party reference in the cover letter you can surmise that it was actually written by a professional service firm specializing in representing candidates. So, you would definitely expect the cover letter and resume to be of a high standard. Indeed, I can confirm that in my opinion the cover letter and resume are of a higher level of quality than many I’ve seen written by individuals without the help of professional service providers. However, a positive first impression cannot hide the flaws in these documents, some of which may even be fatal.

You may remember that I concluded in chapter three that the purpose of a resume is to effectuate an invitation for an interview. However, unlike a resume collated in a student resume book, here we have an additional complexity. This resume was sent blind and not in response to an advertised position. This presents other key challenges, which I didn’t address in chapter three, with respect to how over-the-transom resumes are dealt with.

First, the recipient of a blind resume is likely an HR manager/department head or a high-level manager, like the chairman, CEO, COO, president, CFO, vice president, and so on. There are a number of implications. One is a trivial observation; unlike in a student resume book, any resume sent via mail or email does require an “introductory” cover letter, which was indeed present in our example. Next, let’s remember that an HR person or any higher-level manager is the likeliest addressee for all over-the-transom resumes. Thus, we can conclude that they constantly receive many resumes, probably in the tens and sometimes in the hundreds each month, depending on the size of the company. So, now let’s put ourselves in their shoes to understand their reactions.

We can safely assume that the HR manager and the high-level executives are aware of current job openings. It would also be fair to assume that they will not bother to read resumes that cross their desk (with the possible exception of an HR manager), unless a current opening exists. For the sake of the example, let’s assume that an opening does exist for a higher-level management position and thus they will indeed look at resumes for a potential fit. We already discussed in chapter three that few people, if any, will thoroughly read resumes. Instead, they quickly scan them to decide whether it should be of interest or not. So, the key question is: What might they be looking for in a quick scan of the resume in our specific situation? Please take a minute to think about the top three or four things they will most likely look for in order to decide whether to discard a resume or give it consideration.

I claim that the following list represents the elements they would scan for:

1.Is the level/title of the candidate a fit with the level/title of the position at hand? Meaning, if the open position is for a CEO, does the resume represent someone who has been a CEO or is ready to be promoted into a CEO position, i.e., a COO or president? Or, if the open position is for a COO, then does the resume state that the applicant currently holds a COO position, or is at a vice-president level and is ready to be promoted? Or, if the position is for a vice president, then does the resume represent someone who has served in that position or is a director-level manager ready to be promoted? In other words, the first thing they will want to see is the candidate’s current title. Assuming a match, then:

2.Is the title in the appropriate functionality? Meaning, if the position is in the marketing department, the HR manager or senior executive will want to see experience in marketing. If in finance, they’ll want to see a finance background, and so on. Obviously, for the CEO and COO positions, this question is less relevant. Assuming a match, then:

3.Is it in the same or a closely related industry? Clearly, each industry has its own competitive dynamics and special expertise and experiences, so the right title but in a different industry is not likely to offer a compelling match. Assuming a match, then:

4.Is the title and experience from a large and/or reputable company, or a small company? Clearly, a vice president in a small company may not be perceived to be qualified for the same title in a large company. The opposite is not true and actually, in general, experience in a larger corporation is highly valued by smaller companies. This is because the larger companies are generally perceived to have greater, more sophisticated systems and procedures, and more depth of experience, than smaller companies.

If all four questions above produce a match, then the resume will receive another look; otherwise, it would be discarded. I doubt that anybody would disagree with the above list of questions and the resultant conclusions. So now, we only need to resolve whether the cover letter and resume are conducive to “help” easily find answers to the four questions above, and then evaluate whether the cover letter and resume in our example are well written and do justice to the candidate. I didn’t address the cover letter in chapter three, so let me first share my primary observations regarding cover letters.

Cover Letters for Resumes

Most cover letters I’ve seen over the years have in my opinion been poorly written. The primary “mistakes” are that they are too long and not cognizant of what the real objective of a cover letter should be.

Just like with the resume, cover letters are not likely to be thoroughly read. Instead, they will be quickly scanned for pertinent information to determine whether to give the candidate additional attention or to discard the letter. So, the longer the cover letter, the greater the likelihood that the reader will lose patience. Also, the longer the letter, the less likely the reader will notice the more critical information they seek to glean from a quick scan. Thus, just like in a resume, the more succinct the writing, the better. Not only will the candidate reduce the risk of the reader prematurely discarding their resume due to loss of patience, but they will also increase the probability that the reader will indeed read what the candidate would like them to notice.

It appears to me that the biggest reason for lengthy cover letters is an attempt by the candidate to enumerate as many positive attributes as they believe could influence interest in them. Many times, the cover letter almost summarizes the resume itself, and/or adds qualitative elaborations about the candidate’s experiences, positive traits, talents, and presumed accomplishments, thereby making it longer.

Clearly, just as with the resume, to write an effective cover letter, one must first define the real objective of the cover letter. In my opinion it is not the same objective as the resume. So, providing a summary and repeating in the cover letter what is captured in the resume makes no sense to me. Not just because it makes it longer, but more importantly, it creates a situation whereby the reader believes that they got the highlights of the candidate’s resume and as a result the resume will not even be looked at—the one document that the candidate labored so much over to ensure the most effective and compelling display of their background and experience.

From my perspective, the real objective of the cover letter is to “incentivize” the reader to look at the resume. Therefore, it follows that the real question to answer is: What can be written in a cover letter that will maximize the inclination of a reader to look at the resume, while being as succinct as possible to avoid loss of patience and prematurely discarding the resume?

In my opinion, the following guidelines will yield the most effective cover letter:

•Be as succinct as possible. But not in the same way as with the resume. In chapter three, I recommended that the resume “need not have all the information about you, but rather only the important information that is necessary and used throughout the process.” Here, though, I literally mean succinct, without the burden of needing to be reasonably complete in providing all the necessary history about yourself. I recommend no more than one paragraph of substance (not including trivial contact information, confidentiality statement, referring person, etc.). If any past accomplishments and experiences are mentioned, they should not be an extensive list of all of them. Rather, select the top one, or two at most, and weave them as part of the single paragraph, mostly for the purpose of highlighting the accomplishments, rather than fully explaining them.

•Don’t summarize the resume. Make sure it does not provide anything that resembles a summary of the resume itself.

•Provide only the most critical differentiating factors. Focus here on the real impressive and differentiating facts, as opposed to facts that many other candidates may be able to claim as well.

•Be humble with self-compliments. Strongly worded self-compliments are not well received. (I address this issue later in this chapter.)

•Address a specific person and/or title, if possible. The more “personal” the cover letter appears, the more attention it is likely to receive. Try to avoid “To whom it may concern.” (Do some advance research if need be. Only use that phrase if there is no other way.)

•Invoke a reference, if possible. Referring to a specific person (either by name or title) who will be recognized by the addressee will add credibility and increase the inclination to pay more attention, rather than less.

Having said the above, there is another alternative that would be reasonable and even more effective at times: Interchange the role of the resume with the cover letter. That is, use the cover letter to promote your factual accomplishments as if it were the resume, and use the resume to provide a more complete historical biography. This alternative would be more appropriate to consider if your resume would be too long otherwise. This way, you take the best parts of what would normally be in your resume and push it up front to the cover letter, and the resume becomes just a “filler” to make sure you provided your full background. Obviously, with this alternative, you don’t really care if the reader ever reads the resume itself because you have captured in the cover letter all the information you wanted the reader to glean. Should you choose this alternative approach, make sure that the resume is indeed simplistic and not a repetition of what was captured in the cover letter.

We can now go back and evaluate the cover letter and the resume in our example. Hopefully, it will give you additional insights about writing yours.

Let’s look first at the content of the cover letter. Imagine that you are the CEO or the HR manager receiving the resume. Would you truly believe all the ambiguous and generic self-promoting claims in the cover letter, such as:

•“He brings authentic and invigorating leadership while developing high performing teams.”

•“He is known for maximizing value creation.”

•“He transforms status quo businesses into world-class, winning cultures.”

•“His effective, start-up strategies, food, e-commerce . . . round out his ‘best athlete’ profile.”

•“Customers find him to be passionate about the consumer experience”—and on and on?

Of course not. Nobody would! These claims quickly would be discounted, or completely discarded. If you think so, too, then one should ask why anybody (the candidate, or a professional service presenting them) would even make such claims. They are just a waste of space that makes scanning the resume for the more important aspects much more difficult, thereby increasing the temptation to discard the resume.

Worse yet, any self-promotion is not looked upon favorably in the corporate world. At a minimum, it reflects immaturity and naivete, because the inference is that the candidate is not even cognizant of how self-promotion of this kind is perceived. Worse, it connotes that the candidate lacks good judgment for thinking that it is appropriate to make such egotistical claims in a cover letter (or resume). I can tell you that I always react negatively to such asinine self-promotion, regardless of whether it was written by the candidates themselves or a professional agent representing them.

There are, however, aspects of self-promotion that are acceptable and desirable in a cover letter or resume. These would be specific and actual claims that are impressive, but also factual and provable. For example: “I outperformed expectations and grew the company at a 50 percent annual rate”; “I was the team leader”; “I was awarded a certificate of excellence”; “I was selected from a large group of candidates to . . .”, and so on.

On the positive side, note that the first sentence of the second paragraph in the cover letter addresses well what I enumerated to be the four most important questions a reader may be scanning for. I also like the reference to the large size of the company the candidate managed and the factual, impressive growth and profitability figures. Otherwise, from my perspective, these are the only sentences of substance and interest to the reviewer. Had the cover letter only addressed those aspects, it would have been great. As it stands, the remainder added no value, and most likely only detracted from the attractiveness of the candidate and increased the probability that the reader would discard the resume prematurely.

Now we can look at the resume itself. What are your observations? Do you like it? Do you believe it is effective? Would you make any changes? Below are my observations.

What is first immediately apparent from an overall visual inspection is that the resume spans two pages, which I am not a fan of, as I described in chapter three. (Although it may be difficult to condense a longer career, particularly of a higher-level manager, into a single page, so in that case, two pages could be appropriate. However, I would try to keep the resume to a single page, if at all possible.) The second observation is that, visually, the resume looks very good, and is concise and well organized. It is also easy to scan.

As I read the content of the resume, a different picture emerges. The resume has some positive attributes, but for the most part, it is suboptimal. (Although it is consistent with the common wisdom and thus, perhaps, many others may not make the same observations I made.) Below are my observations:

•The introductory paragraph (where normally one states the “Objectives”) comprises five lines that are nothing but generic self-promotion. As I stated earlier, these claims would be discounted, and they potentially present a risk of leaving the impression that the candidate lacks maturity and judgment. Additionally, allocating so much space to such claims necessitates the need for a two-page resume. Worse, this is the very first thing the reader gets to read!

•I like the mention of the $440 million in the company’s description and in the first bullet point under the General Manager title. It points out that the company is of a decent size. I also like the mention of the growth both in revenue and profits; they are factual, meaningful, and suggestive. (Had it been a small company, I would have recommended not mentioning the exact size.)

•The second bullet point is a comedown. The previous reference to $440 million in revenues would lead one to infer that the candidate was exposed to a commensurate depth, breadth, and sophistication of experiences. The inference opens the possibility that the candidate might be qualified to be considered for an equivalent position in a larger company, even a billion-dollar firm. Unfortunately, the subsequent second bullet point dispels any such consideration. A $10 million annual spend is a very insignificant amount for a large corporation. Worse, $500,000 in savings is an insignificant amount relative to the expected results from a CEO/COO of any decent-sized corporation, and immediately leaves an impression that this candidate is a “small-time operator” and not really ready for the “big leagues.” I would have excluded this bullet point altogether.

•The same observation is true about the third bullet point. Twenty-five million dollars in incremental sales is “little league” relative to expectation of a $400 to $500 million company, let alone any larger corporation. This point confirms the limited scale and experience the candidate brings. Worse, following it up with the fact that it was accomplished by “elevating the national sales team’s capabilities to be more consultative and responsive” only serves to diminish the candidate’s business maturity. All COOs are expected to achieve results using all the tools and strategies available to them. The way one gets there is mostly trivial; only that the results are accomplished. Mentioning specifically a single dimension as a reason is diminutive and reflects a lack of maturity for that level (unless it is actually unique and uncommon). I would do away with this bullet point, too.

•The same observation is true about the fourth bullet point. Highlighting the most obvious and basic steps that every successful manager implements as a matter of routine, as if it were a new discovery, is even more diminutive then the previous bullet point. Definitely out!

•I have the same observations for the fifth and sixth bullet points, as well as the bullet points under the Corporate Development & Strategy heading.

•One can see the exact same pattern in the remainder of the candidate’s workplaces.

•Additionally, since the candidate is looking for a high-level position (GM, COO, or CEO), only the experiences that speak to his qualifications for that level are of significance. What the candidate may have done in the early years of his career is irrelevant. Thus, there is no need to elaborate on such early experiences, and deleting this text would allow for a resume of a single page. (I would make an exception only if there was something uniquely impressive in those early years that would create favorable impressions and some differentiation. For example, having worked and showing career progression with larger corporations of strong reputation would imply that the candidate had been highly sought after earlier in his career and done well under demanding circumstances.)

•The Education category is another disaster. The candidate fails to understand how COO-level experience is perceived and should be presented. At that level, any comment regarding past education is of little significance. Only the most recent work experience and achievements influence the decision to hire for such senior levels. (However, education could be used as an important secondary differentiating factor, when multiple candidates were found to be attractive. At that point, good schools, good grades, and any significant academic awards may give one a differentiating advantage. Commentary that offers no special distinction is irrelevant.) With this perspective in mind, let’s look at the resume. Why would an experienced businessperson, particularly at a CEO/COO level, even mention what their minor in college was? Who cares? What importance does it have? If it was added for the sake of completeness or meant to show that the candidate may be fluent in Spanish, why would anybody even believe that it would be a factor in getting a job offer? Moreover, even if it may be of value, then it would be more appropriate to mention at the end of the resume under the Personal category at the end of the resume, where one conventionally expects to find such information.

There is another problem. The candidate’s degree is in journalism, which is not exactly the kind of major one would have expected of an ambitious and accomplished business professional. This fact by itself would not be problematic at the CEO/COO level, since, again, educational background plays a minor role in the decision to hire someone. However, in this particular case, where the candidate may have already left a perception of a lack of business maturity and perhaps being a small operator, indicating an unusual degree suggests the candidate never intended to be a high-level executive.

There is another problem—notice the dates for the candidate’s education. The dates give the impression that the BA degree had been earned in two years, which is a questionable achievement. If the dates signal the graduation dates only, then the resume should have made it clear. If it is a typo, then it’s a pretty bad reflection on the candidate. Typos can be fatal!

The last observation is about the final section, Advisory and Volunteer Work. Note how much space it takes! It may follow the directives of the common wisdom, which advises demonstrating good citizenship and involvement in community affairs, but it is counterproductive in our case. It substantiates and compounds the “immature” perception. Which “mature” CEO/COO would even think that those activities listed in the resume would rise to the point that might affect a decision to hire at that level? I would have not mentioned them at all (unless they were impressive organizations where the candidate had a key role, and where such involvement and contacts would be helpful to the job at hand).

Here is how I would have changed (and improved) the cover letter and resume:

Cover Letter

Dear David:

If you are seeking an accomplished COO/CEO with Sales, Marketing, and Operational expertise within one of your portfolio companies, you may be interested in (full name)’s background and capabilities.

Currently, as GM for a mid-cap company and a leader in the industry, (first name) has successfully grown sales more than 25 percent to $440 million, while increasing profits by 30 percent.

The attached resume provides (first name)’s full background. Please feel free to contact (first name) directly at (phone number). Please be advised that (first name) is conducting a discreet search.

Thank you,

Etc.

I hope I convinced you that the rather typical resume in our example was not a very effective one, and that the changes to the cover letter and resume I offered would have made it better. This exercise again demonstrates that common wisdoms are not immune to flaws. I also hope that it served to illustrate how the small nuances, thinking out of the box, and pure, simple logic lead to insightful observations. Additionally, I hope that in the process you also gained a deeper understanding that complements your knowledge of how to write a great resume. However, before I conclude this chapter, I’d like to bring an additional observation to your attention.

You may be somewhat bewildered by the fact that common wisdoms remain prevalent and are well practiced, in spite of all the negative observations I’ve just pointed out. They are so simple and rudimentary and should therefore be obvious to the experts who write and read resumes. So, how come the experts haven’t wised up to it by now? How is it even possible that such common wisdoms could survive for so long?

My answer is that as unbelievable and unexplainable as it may appear, it happens all the time. It is reality. I have my own explanation as to why. The primary reason is the fact that, from an overall perspective, the basic hypotheses behind the common wisdoms appear to be correct, but although appearing to be logical, the conclusions might not be. As a result, most accept the connection without further scrutiny.

In our example, the genesis for the common wisdom is correct. Employers do look for successful managers who can effectively and creatively manage employees to deliver real results and who are people of high morals and character. Ask any high-level manager whether these variables play a major role, and the answer will most likely be in the affirmative. However, although correct, they are not determinative. This means that, although it is true that those traits are important, and without them one may not get a job offer, it doesn’t follow that they are the primary criteria for receiving a job offer. In other words, there are other, more important factors without which an offer will not be forthcoming no matter how strongly one demonstrates the above. In simple terms, and as mentioned earlier in the book (see chapter five), these conditions fit the “necessary but not sufficient” criterion. It takes more nuanced and deeper thinking to recognize such a flaw in logic, and so the common wisdom continues to survive.

At the same time, since everybody writes their resume in a manner consistent with the common wisdom, then all resumes embody the same flaws, so these flaws are ignored and are not particularly damaging. In situations like these, the damage reflects only an opportunity lost, which is much more difficult to ascertain. Meaning, there is no obvious damage in following the common wisdom, because many do so. However, if one is wiser, one can write a better, smarter resume that avoids negative inferences, thereby increasing, rather than decreasing, the probability of being invited for an in-person interview.

In summary: Don’t be afraid to look for potential flaws in common wisdoms, and don’t be surprised when you easily find them. All you need to do is pay attention to the details and nuances, think out of the box, and make sure you accurately identify the correct challenges/objectives that need to be reached.