Which is Best for a Resume?

Here's a debate from Yahoo about which is the best start for a resume -- an objective (what job you're applying for or would like to have), a summary of your work experience/accomplishments, or simply plunging in with details of your work experience. They list pros and cons for each of these options, but don't say which they think is best, so I thought I'd weigh in on the subject. Here goes:

• I think an objective is useless and a waste of prime, attention-getting space. If you're sending in a resume for consideration, either they know what position you'd like or you can cover it in an email or cover letter. Putting an objective on a resume accomplishes nothing IMO other than makes you look like an amateur (who really does this anyway?) To me, this is by far the worst of the three options.

• I can see that a summary would be useful -- that it would state upfront what you've accomplished and let the reader know whether or not she should keep reading. However, I usually skip summaries when I read resumes. The main reason is that I've seen so many that are poorly written and full of meaningless terminology that they're useless. So I by-pass them and go straight for the meat. In addition, these take up valuable space that could be used to detail your past work experiences (After all, your resume can only be so long, right? If something is added, something needs to come out.) That said, a well-written summary COULD work -- I've just never used one nor seen anyone do so with success. Anyone done well with a summary on their resume?

• Personally, I prefer going straight for the work experience. I list jobs backward chronologically, with a short description (one or two sentences) of the position and then four to six accomplishment-laden bullet points that are backed up with facts (i.e. I don't say "I grew sales" but prefer "I grew sales 10%" -- not the exact words, but you get the picture. For more detailed examples, see How to Write a Winning Resume.) This is the style that has worked for me and the one I prefer when reviewing resumes. Then again, I haven't dusted off my resume for several years, so maybe I'm missing something.

What's your take on this issue? Which of these is the best choice? Or is there a best choice -- will any work? Or maybe different ones work in different situations? I'd love to hear your success stories (or even your failed attempts) using any of these as the start of your resume.

Comments

[TheDebtHawk.com]

I would argue that Objective Statements are not just worthless, but harmful. Objective statements tend to be somewhat narrow and specifically tailor to the job you are applying for. This can lead to the interviewer pigeon holing you before you even talk to him or her.

If you state that your objective is to do XX, then it can look like that is all you want to do. This can make you look less ambitious than you really are.

[Stefano]

I also tend to think that the Objective section is pretty useless, while I think that a Summary/Profile section has some value.

Funny that almost everybody writing about resumes has the same example when it comes to real facts, that is "grown sales by x%" or something to that effect.

Of course sales is a key metric that all companies have; too bad if your company does not have a metric in the area where your influence can be directly measured (e.g. you are one out of five software developers in a team: things tend to be a little bit trickier to measure there).

[MC]

These things are true for my field also (biology). Especially the part about skipping the spin and presenting just the factsn clearly.

I most want to know where you worked last and what you accomplished there, also where you worked before that, and before that, etc.

Also, don't try to hide what you don't want me to know. If you don't list a recent major employer as a reference it's a red flag-- and you can be sure I'll track down who it is and call them. If you do list them, I'll probably not bother.

[Stacie]

I was laid off last August and spent some time at a placement firm. Their take was that the local headhunters liked the objective statement because it helped them scan resumes.

Of course, that meant it had to be well-written and slight modified for each job posting applied for. Or removed for the job posting, but used for the head hunter.

My take is that it is a tool that must be used appropriately.

[Joe Taylor Jr.]

Objective statements are great—when you customize them to the role and the position you're hiring for. As the hiring manager in my office, I see poorly targeted objective statements all the time. If your objective is a "full time career in the health care industry," why are you applying for my part time marketing job?

[Craig]

I agree, an objective is pointless and a waste of space. Maybe as an entry level position I could see it, otherwise there is not reason for it at all. A summary could be more of a cover letter which would go before the actual resume. You need all the space to list your work experience and projects you were involved with.

[Colin]

I used to include a 2-3 line qualifications summary, but ditched it. You can't really include any detail, so unless it includes info that you can't glean from the rest of the resume, its wasted space.

[Rich A.]

I think the Objective is moot today. No need to list it.

The bigger question to me is this: how to get your resume noticed, and how to keep it from ending up on the "resume pile of death" with the other 500 resumes the company has just received.

I think you can make a big impact by how you deliver or package your resume. Get creative. Send it via Priority Mail or FedEx. Or send it in a package that is unique to the industry or company.

Oversized mail, and "lumpy" mail (an envelope with something inside it besides paper), creates intrigue and gets opened first.