The problem is that many who compose a resume, particularly if they are composing one for the first time, worry more about filling the page than with what they are filling the page or how they want to structure the data. In other words, for many it's more important that a resume looks full, so that it looks like they've done a lot. This would work if those who read the resumes were stupid. They're not.
What Resumes Are
Basically, resumes--when composed well--are two things:
They are arguments. That is, they are persuasive documents that attempt to argue that you have the skills and qualities necessary to do a job. Resumes at their best don't simply present data--they present evidence. This means that one must be selective about what evidence goes into the resume. No one is going to be impressed by a crowded resume if what you're crowding it with is packing pellets.
They are targeted. That is, a resume ideally is designed for a particular job. Readers tend to find generic resumes--the one-size-fits-all, bland document that one mass mails by the hundreds--pointless and even offensive. An ideal resume recognizes the particular skills and qualities needed for a particular job and/or a particular organization. One can certainly have a generic resume which one develops into a targeted resume as the job demands, but the generic resume really should never be sent out.
In order to target a resume, you first need to know what skills and qualities the job requires. If you're fortunate, an organization will tell you explicitly what it wants. Sending a generic resume is a mistake to begin with, but sending one when a potential employer has told you exactly what he/she wants is a mistake of mythic proportions. (Okay, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much). It's akin to a waitperson ignoring a customer's orders and bringing whatever he/she wants.
Even if you're not told explicitly what skills are needed, you still need to target the resume. In that case, it falls on you to understand the position for which you are applying well enough to know what's needed to do the job well. After that, then, it's a matter of examining your own skills, and matching them to the skills needed to do the job. For example, if you happen to be applying for a marketing position, and you find no specific statement of the skills and qualities the employer is looking for, simply ask yourself, "What skills and qualities would I need to have in order to do this job well?" (This, of course, assumes you're familiar enough with marketing to know how to answer that.) Once you've answered that question, then examine your own skills and qualities and see how well they answer that question.
Ultimately, keep this in mind: it's NOT the responsibility of your potential employer to figure out what skills and qualities you have; it's YOUR responsibility to make them known to the potential employer.
What’s the difference between a skill and a quality?Here’s a summary of the differences.
Skills
Skills fundamentally refer to what you can do.We can divide skills into “hard” skills and “soft” skills.Hard skills refer to skills specific to a particular job.So if, for example, you were applying for a position in web design, knowing HTML code or Cascading Style Sheets would be skills necessary to do that particular job.
Soft skills, on the other hand, refer to what we can call cross-platform skills.They are skills that are necessary to do virtually any job.For example, if you look at lists or articles about the skills employers seek in college graduates, almost every time you’ll see Communication Skills at the top of the list.In other words, no matter what the job is for which you are applying, communication skills are essential.
Qualities
Qualities refer to who you are—the values and beliefs that make you the person you are.While at first glance they may seem irrelevant to a job, remember that you’ll be working with other people, within a corporate culture, so qualities do matter.For example, qualities such as innovativeness, self-directedness and honesty commonly show up on lists of qualities that employers look for.
What follows are two links to articles that identify the skills and qualities commonly sought by potential employers:
Get a job,
Sha na na na, sha na na na na
--The Silhouettes
Beginning this week, we will start to deal with the job search and what may be the two most important professional writing documents you'll produce: the resume and letter of application. (Technically they would not be examples of professional writing if you're just beginning your career, because you're not a professional yet. But the people who read these documents expect professional-level writing.)
Before we get into the nuts and bolts of resumes and letters of application, however, we first need to think about what those documents are supposed to do and how they get used. We also need to think about what potential employers are looking for candidates to be able to do. The notion that all you need to do is fill in some blanks about work and school in chronological order (actually, reverse chronological order) is quaint, and certainly makes preparing these documents easy. Unfortunately, that method doesn't work very well. By following a "traditional" approach to putting together a resume, you'll likely run into these problems:
* Your resume and letter will look like and read like thousands of others. If the point is to make yourself stand out from other job candidates, how exactly are a boilerplate resume and letter going to do this?
* If you're a traditional-aged college student, your work experience has likely been fragmented, and for the most part likely has little or nothing to do with your chosen career. So while it's terrific that you worked hard waiting tables or trimming hedges or flipping burgers, none of that will have anything to do with what you foresee as your life's work. So what's the point of just listing that stuff on a resume?
The key is to rethink how you approach these documents, and you do that by rethinking the way you look for a job and the way you make decisions about what to include on the resume and what to include on the letter. This ain't your grandparents' (or even parents') job search any more.
Myth: Create a one-size-fits-all resume, make a ream of copies, then carpet-bomb potential employers with your resumes. This is like tossing chum into the ocean--hopefully something not-too-repulsive will rise and take the bait.
Reality: Target the job search. Carefully research the organizations for whom you would like to work, and limit yourself to about a dozen organizations. Revise and rework the resume for each company. Believe it or not, organizations typically don't just want warm bodies to fill positions--they want people who both want to work there and are prepared to work there.
Need help with researching an organization? Click here to go to a site that will walk you through the steps for finding out information about an organization.
Myth: Buy a newspaper, open the want ads, and start circling.
Reality: Current research indicates that finding a job through newspaper want ads is actually the least effective approach. The most effective? Networking. Other effective approaches are internships (which lead to networking opportunities) and cyber-searches (such as Monster.com). Basically you want to exploit several different methods, rather than restrict yourself to one--particularly if that one is the traditional newspaper ad.
Click here to read an article on the effectiveness of networking
Myth: Fill as much space as you can in the resume, so that it looks like you've done lots of stuff. That might compensate for the possibility that the stuff you enter has little if anything to do with the job for which you're applying.
Reality: Emphasize skills and qualities you've developed as a consequence of the experience you've had. Match those skills and qualities to the skills and qualities needed to do the job for which you're applying. (That's why you research the company.) It's not so much what you've done, but how well you've done it, and what skills and qualities you needed to develop to do things well.
In my previous post about style and professional writing, the key point I want you to take away from the post is that readers in a professional setting prefer simplicity and directness in the documents they read. Unfortunately, typical school writing tends to work against that, since one of the primary functions of school writing is to demonstrate how smart we are. (As a quick example, in school writing I may have replaced the word “work” with the word “mitigate”—the latter has three syllables to one, and fewer people would know what it meant, as compared to “work.” Ergo, I’m smarter than most people, as also demonstrated by my use of the Latin word “ergo,” and so on and so on. That’s how school writing works.) However, ideally professionals don’t write to prove how smart they are; they write to get something done, and things won’t get done if the readers don’t know what the writer is talking about.
Now, we do have to be reasonable; the writer has every right to expect a certain level of intelligence from his or her readers, and sometimes the communication problem doesn’t lie with the writer, but with a reader who’s dense. As a professional, you don’t have to write as if you’re writing the sequel to Pat the Bunny. Nevertheless, the primary responsibility for clearly communicating a message lies with the writer.
We’re going to use this following exercise to talk about how style in professional communication can affect how we receive a message. Below you'll find a copy of an entire written text--specifically, a memo. All I'll say at this point is that this is an actual memo, not one made up for a schoolroom exercise. Your first task here is very simple: literally, what do you think this memo is about? We know it’s about a vehicle, but what kind of vehicle, and what does that vehicle do? All I'm looking for here is a surface reading, so your responses should be very short.
Since there is a second stage to this exercise, I need to limit the time frame within which you can answer the question above. I'd like you to answer the question by Wednesday morning, so I can move to the second stage by Wednesday evening. I want you to put your responses in the Discussion section. So, without further ado, here's the memo:
Re: Changes for special vehicles now in service at __________ and for those now being built.
Since December, ninety-seven thousand have been processed by the three vehicles in service, with no major incidents. In the light of observations made so far, however, the following technical changes are needed:
1. The vans' normal load is usually nine per square yard. In ______ vehicles, which are very spacious, maximum use of space is impossible, not because of any possible overload, but because loading to full capacity would affect the vehicle's stability. So reduction of the load space seems necessary. It must absolutely be reduced by a yard, instead of trying to solve the problem, as hitherto, by reducing the number of pieces loaded. Besides, this extends the operating time, as the empty void must be filled with carbon monoxide. On the other hand, if the load space is reduced, and the vehicle is packed solid, the operating time can be considerably shortened. The manufacturers told us during a discussion that reducing the size of the van's rear would throw it badly off balance. The front axle, they claim, would be overloaded. In fact, the balance is automatically restored, because the merchandise aboard displays during the operation a natural tendency to rush to the rear doors, an is mainly found lying there at the end of the operation. So the front axle is not overloaded.
2. The lighting must be better protected than now. The lamps must be enclosed in a steel grid to prevent their being damaged. Lights could be eliminated, since they apparently are never used. However, it has been observed that when the doors are shut, the load always presses hard against them [the doors] as soon as darkness sets in. This is because the load naturally rushes toward the light when darkness sets in, which makes closing the doors difficult. Also, because of the alarming nature of darkness, screaming always occurs when the doors are closed. It would therefore be useful to light the lamp before and during the first moments of the operation.
3. For easy cleaning of the vehicle, there must be a sealed drain in the middle of the floor. The drainage hole's cover, eight to twelve inches in diameter, would be equipped with a slanting trap, so that fluid liquids can drain off during the operation. During cleaning, the drain can be used to evacuate large pieces of dirt. The aforementioned technical changes are to be made to vehicles in service only when they come in for repairs. As for the ten vehicles ordered from______, they must be equipped with all innovations and changes shown by use and experience to be necessary.
When talking about the rhetorical situation and professional writing, we need to consider style--that is, not the content of the message, but how that message is communicated. As I indicated in a previous post, recognizing the needs and values of readers is a crucial component to the rhetorical situation, and a great deal of the success (or failure) you might have when trying to connect with your readers hinges on the way you tell your readers something.
I read an article a while ago in the Oil City Derrick that I thought demonstrated beautifully how a writer tries to use style to control how a reader receives the message. (For those of you not from this area of Western Pennsylvania, the Oil City Derrick is the local newspaper from Oil City, PA.) I will simply write out the parts I want you to read. The article deals with the closing of a Hallmark store in the Clarion Mall. What was striking was the reprinted communication from Julie Brookings, the strategic communications manager for Hallmark Cards. Here are her written remarks, which she sent through email. I don't know offhand if these are her complete remarks, so there may be context that we're missing. As you read her remarks, I want you to take note not of the message itself, but how she communicates the message--the words, the phrasings, the sentence structures she uses. Remember, she's the strategic communications manager, so she's carefully constructing the message:
"As it has for most American businesses, the economic crisis and its resulting drop in consumer confidence creates challenges for Hallmark and for the network of specialty stores that represent the Hallmark brand.... Traffic at malls and strip centers has declined in recent months and retail sales have not been as strong as we normally expect.... Consideration is given to the potential transfer of employees to another corporate-owned store, but there are no open positions at this time. All affected employees who are able to remain through the store's closing will be provided severance.
While the difficult economy has posed problems for most retailers, including our stores, because of the enduring need our products meet--which is more relevant now more than ever, we are confident most Hallmark stores can weather the current economic situation and emerge as an even more relevant shopping choice for those who wish to connect and celebrate with others."
So there you have it. What are your thoughts and reactions to the way she communicates the message? While she can't make people happy about this decision, she can use words to minimize the damage and push readers towards accepting the message (which is different from liking it).
If you've read my posting on the rhetorical situation, then you know that when we talk about the rhetorical situation, we talk about those factors that affect what we say and how we say it in a professional context. While it is certainly important that you deliver the message clearly and unambiguously, You also need to factor in the questions of what message to deliver and how to deliver it. Words not only convey information; they also project an image about the organization for which one is writing. When one writes, then, one has to take into account what image one wants to project about the organization as part of the rhetorical situation.
Let me try to break this down for you by analyzing two pieces of professional writing. An important element to take into account when composing a professional document is corporate culture. Since organizations involve human interaction, human behavior and hierarchical structures, organizations are societies, and as such they develop a culture: a set of values and beliefs by which all members of the organization are supposed to abide, or at least use as guidelines for their behavior within an organization. This is not necessarily an unspoken thing. In fact, one of the major written professional documents in an organization is a touchstone for those values and beliefs: the mission statement. The mission statement is a written document that conveys both information and image. It often is the public face for the organization.
To get us started thinking and discussing this, I've included below two links to a common type of professional writing--corporate mission statements. Most (though not all) organizations have one, particularly organizations that have a significant public presence. One of the statements comes from our own organization (Clarion), another from a smaller, less well known organization with a small but very devoted consumer base (Rogue). First, read the mission statements by clicking on the links (once you've clicked on the Clarion link, you'll then have to click on "Mission"). Then return here, where I'll give you a rhetorical reading of both statements and the image both statements attempt to convey about their respective organizations.
As you read these statements, first keep in mind that different readers will filter a message in different ways--which is something that can make writing for a large audience (as is often the case in organizational writing) tricky.
Second, note that none of the mission statements offer any hard information--and that's what makes them so meaningful to the organization. Mission statements are indeed marketing tools, but they're not intended to market a product or a service--they're intended to market an image of the organization--a personality, if you will. The audience for that marketing is both the consumers and the employees. To a large degree this reflects the current state of communication, where everything seems to be available to anyone who wants it. Before the advent of the internet, mission statements were typically in-house. That is, they were guidelines for employees to follow so that they could fit into and adhere to the "rules" of corporate culture. So I believe that now mission statements serve both as marketing tools and as cultural standards for the organization.
First, follow the links below to read the statements:
First, notice that the writer never uses personal pronouns. The writer never refers to Clarion as "we," or refer to the readers as "you." The writer always refers to Clarion in institutional terms. So what? Well, for one thing, that kind of language creates distance between the author (or in this case, who the author is representing--Clarion) and the reader. This can effectively send the message that while the reader can become part of the institution, the institution will always be bigger than the individual. This also creates a highly formal and structured relationship between the writer and reader. As part of this, also notice that it's not a particularly emotional piece. This is solemn and controlled. One can get the sense that this statement was carefully constructed.
Second, notice that the writer has a tendency to use long, complex sentences--though not so complex that we can't understand them--and a relatively elevated vocabulary (NOT an incomprehensible vocabulary; just an elevated one. Note, for example, how many words the writer uses that are more than three syllables long). Again, so what? These kinds of sentences and this kind of vocabulary signals to the reader that the writer (and by extension, Clarion) is intelligent and capable of handling complex thought.
Both of these elements would seem to nicely fit the image that a university would want to project. This is likely the kind of place one would depend upon to give one the tools to get a job: a place that was in control, serious, intelligent. Now, if you're wondering whether this would be the kind of image that would appeal to a 17 year old with a short attention span, sore thumbs from texting and an urge to break free, you'd be right to wonder that. But I would suggest that's not the target audience. I think the target audience is parents. And I think if Clarion were to compose a document targeted specifically to recruit high school students, the structure and language would change dramatically. And that's the point.
Rogue's Mission Statement
First, notice that Rogue refers to its statement as a Creed rather than a Mission. A creed is a belief, and a mission is a goal. So Rogue is not out to convert, meaning that it likely thinks those reading the statement are already converted. "Creed," however, does have religious undertones, so it's not just a belief--it's a fervid belief.
Second, while Rogue does refer to itself as Rogue, it also uses personal pronouns, referring to itself as "we." This helps create a more personal connection to the reader. Rogues also uses a less elevated, more casual vocabulary and sentence structure. Note, for example, that while Clarion uses no contractions, Rogue does. Also notice that at least three times--including the very first sentence--Rogue uses the word "revolution" or a variant. This would seem to coincide well with the name of the company itself. Rogues is also not above using humor ("even if it means going against the grain," which acts as a pun, since the company makes beer). Rogue even uses language that might typically be unacceptable in a standard piece of professional writing ("B.S.," and we all know what that stands for). Its bulleted list of principles are short and pithy.
As with the first statement, Rogue's words project a particular image about the company, one that is, of course, quite different from Clarion. But then, both organizations have different purposes and different audiences. Whereas Clarion wants to project solidness, control and intellect, Rogue wants to be perceived as a maverick thumbing its nose at convention, a David fighting against Goliath corporations more concerned with profit than quality of product (one of Rogue's common targets is Budweiser). And if this sounds almost--Marxist--well, perhaps it is.
For discussion I'd like you to try for yourself what I've done above. Below is a link to another mission statement, for a company I'm guessing you're quite familiar with. Think about and discuss the image this organization wants to convey. The organization wants to come across as having a particular "personality," and most importantly for our purposes, uses written language to do that. Write your thoughts in the Discussion component associated with this blog post in D2L.
If all we needed to worry about when writing as professionals was the message itself, professional writing would be easy--just say what you have to say and move on. However, professional writing occurs within organizations, and organizations are composed of people, who are complex and often behave in complicated and conflicted ways. And because organzations are composed of people, they also develop their own cultures, with value systems and ideals that need to be reflected in the documents you produce. Basically, then, when we talk about the rhetorical situation, we're trying to figure out what factors within an organization and organizational culture will affect what we want to say and how we want to say it.
Keep in mind three fundamental principles about professional writing, that distinguish professional writing from other kinds of writing:
Professional writing exists to get things done One does not write as a professional to bare one's soul, get in touch with one's feelings, or exhilarate the slovenly masses with one's artistry. One writes professionally to do something, or to get someone else to do something. Of course, if one fails to take into account the complexities of the reader(s), then there's a real good chance that what one wants to get done, isn't done. Success in professional writing isn't measured by eloquence; it's measured by effectiveness.
Professional writing exists to benefit the organization first The organization is paying your salary, and they are not paying you to express yourself. They are paying you to get things done that will benefit the organization. So taking into account the needs and culture of the organization is crucial.
When you write as a professional, you write as a representative of the organization Whatever you say, and however you say it, it needs to align with the values and ideals of the organization. Thus it's important to understand the context of the organization.
The Rhetorical Situation
What is a rhetorical situation? When we talk about the rhetorical situation in professional writing, we mean that any message we send occurs within a network of relationships and events. In other words, there are factors beyond the message itself that affect how we communicate the message and how the message is received.
Think about it this way: you've likely seen the Mac computer commercials featuring the cool young dude and the middle-aged suit. The core message is simple--buy a Mac, not a PC. But the advertisers create a context within which buying that Mac will align you with the forces of hipness (and conversely, buying a PC will align you with the forces of authoritarianism). The advertisers understand how they want their message to be received, and they base that on what they understand to be the values of their targeted audience.
To use another, less pleasant example, downsizing and layoffs have been an unfortunately common event. Let's say one company lays off employees in the spring, and another lays them off two weeks before Christmas. The message for both companies is the same. But I'd be willing to bet that most of us would be more perturbed by the Christmas layoffs than the spring layoffs. Why? Because something about the context of Christmas alters the impact and the value of the message, even though the message is fundamentally the same.
So when we think about the rhetorical situation for an act of writing, we are trying to be aware of those elements that may affect how we communicate a message, and perhaps more importantly, how that message is received. Generally the following elements are part of determining the rhetorical situation:
Purpose -- What do we want to happen? Are we writing to inform, persuade, correct, support, inquire?
Reader(s) -- Perhaps the single most important element, since no message is worthwhile unless someone "hears" it and responds to it (ideally responding as we would like the reader to respond). Who is this person? What is this person like? What does this person think of you (assuming he/she knows you)? What does this person think of the situation about which you're writing? What is your relationship to that person? What does this person know, not know, need to know? How do you think this person will initally receive the message?
Corporate Culture -- What are the values and beliefs that inform the organization, and how does your message fit into those values and beliefs?
Culture outside of the Organization -- Will your message have an impact, directly or indirectly, on the world outside of your organization? (This is often the case with messages that have ethical or moral issues embedded in them.)
In the next post I'll show you how the rhetorical context plays out in written professional communication.
