By Richard B. Barger
What are the first things you look for in a job applicant's resume?
From my perspective, if I were in the hiring process I would be on the lookout for three key factors:
- A job application complete with proper editing, grammar, usage, etc. Without that, the resume is trashed immediately. It'd better be perfect.
- What does the candidate bring to the table and what can he do for me or my organization? The resume is valuable real estate; don't waste my time or your limited
space with anything that doesn't help me see you performing in my job. (I'm slightly more lenient on first-job applicants, but not much.)
- Quantify, quantify, quantify. Show me how you did something better in a measurable way: Increased sales, increased profits, decreased costs, reduced turnover...any
business results. Show me that you understand business, not just communications.
If you were hiring someone, how would you characterize the outstanding candidate? It's tempting to say "confident, creative, intelligent, willing to learn." Those are the
first things I thought of. However, for me, it really isn't that simple. The outstanding candidate will identify himself through the resume, the interview process, references,
work samples. In short, he will have it all.
There are so many candidates for positions that I can afford to be picky; indeed, there's no reason NOT to demand excellence.
Pick A Trait
I've developed my personal interview process through the years, and it has proven very successful. If I were to base a hire on only one characteristic, it would be on
interview performance -- in my interview, not someone else's.
One of the things I look for is whether this candidate has given any significant thought to this job and how it fits into the profession. Has he given me information that
convinces me he will act reasonably and consistently in a given situation? Does he have a 'touchstone' that guides his decision-making?
Sound esoteric? In a series of situational questions, I want to be sure the candidate understands the job, the profession and my company, and answers as a thoughtful,
knowledgeable, experienced professional. If he "invents" an answer to each situation on the spot, rather than demonstrating a professional philosophy that consistently informs
his decisions, he's no good to me.
MBA is OK
I also prefer someone who's accredited, because it shows something both about the candidate's work ethic and that the individual has passed a demanding, recognized standard.
He may or may not be better than some other candidate, but he has been willing to subject himself to a rigorous process and has been evaluated by his peers. Of course, this
doesn't work for someone with fewer than five years in the profession.
Should you encourage priority consideration for someone with an advanced degree? Yes, since in most business settings, having an MBA will help a practitioner understand the
business issues surrounding any communications or PR position.
The practitioner should think like a businessperson who understands communications, not like a PR person who happens to work for a business. The candidate must know what keeps
the CEO up at night, and must approach the job like an advisor to management, not like a technician who believes he is contributing when he advocates use of a fifth color on a
brochure.
However, having a specialized master's degree is equally good and, in some ways, better. I don't believe a candidate with two communications degrees is as strong as someone
with a second degree in my business' or my client's field. In my case, a background in agribusiness and economics may have reduced the number of organizations that were
interested in me, but I was more highly qualified than most candidates for positions in agribusiness organizations. I was a better "fit."
Contact: Richard B. Barger is president of Barger Consulting, Kansas City, MO. He can be reached at [email protected].