I’m in my next to last semester of graduate school. I came back last year after working in the corporate world for seven years, with 4.5 of those being in Internal Audit. I’m in lschool to get a master’s in information science, and my ideal position is one of a reference librarian in an academic environment (although I’ll go to a public or corporate library or to technical services if I get a position in one of those that fits me better). I’m figuring on a business reference position - with my experience, it fits.
That sais, this is a fairly major career change for me. I’m in the process of developing my resume so that I can kick the job search into high gear next semester. Looking at my options, it seems like a functional resume is better for me (if I write it correctly). Sure, I could use a chronological resume - if I wanted an audit position. The deal is, I don’t.
What I don’t know is how the real world looks at functional resumes. I know I wouldn’t have thought one way or another about it when I was doing hiring, but that was for fairly low level branch managers and customer service reps.
I’ve never heard of a “functional resume”, and I’ve viewed thousands of resumes and made hundreds of hires from them. I take it the point is that you specifically don’t list previous jobs, or if you do, you don’t list them in order or don’t list the time there? Without more info about it, I don’t like the idea at all.
Now… That’s not to say you can’t sculpt your history to emphasize what you want to and de-emphasize what you don’t. In fact that’s really the key to it all.
Could you give a bit more detail about what a “functional resume” is?
A functional resume states your skills, in active language, like “i can,” i will," etc. It’s the best you can do, if you don’t have years of job experience. Employers will look at that, OP, if they have a junior or youth position to fill. They don’t favour that, except as charity. If they have an existing position to be filled, which is the usual deal, they will look at experience: i.e. “I did” or “I was.”
Heck, I look at them, and then also at the chronological posting. Generally, I do you’re bog standard resume (2 pages) and do the functional bit in the cover letter.
Remember you are at a great place to be changing careers. Plenty of people will want to pigeon hole you back into internal audit, but just stick to your guns and say you went to grad school to get out of doing internal audits…
The sources and the general style I’m looking at do list previous jobs, and the dates you were at the job. Perhaps it is just a matter of arranging the information in a way that it emphasizes what I want to do now, not what I used to do, but still saying “I’ve got this experience, I’m employable and I’m a good employee”.
Basically, I’ve got:
Objective:
Education (because I am just finishing grad school and this is a new career for me, I feel like this needs to be higher on the resume)
Summary of qualifications: What aspects of my experience fit this position/career
Relevant accomplishments: What specifically have I done at each job that fits this position
Work history, including company, position(s), dates etc.
My impression on the other side is that a functional resume is mistrusted; people like to see your job history, too. I compromised with a brief job history of recent jobs, and then a paragraph outlining skills. Seemed to work well: I was only out of work a month.
BTW, don’t write “a resume.” Tailor each resume for the job you’re applying to. Don’t lie, but highlight the skills you have that match that particular job.
The format you’re using seems to make sense if the skills you gained from previous experience translates well to the new career, but wouldn’t necessarily show up in a traditional resume.
I don’t mind some skill highlights at the top, as long as actual experience is listed.
I’ve looked at a few resumes for computer programmers, and I like to see a functional section on the resume. It allows me to quickly determine whether the person has the right skills for the job.
My advice is to put a functional section up front, but then put your work history after that.
What you’ve described here doesn’t sound so bad; it’s always good to accentuate where you’re good up front. Also, if you can find relevance in past jobs be sure to emphasize it. Personally, I would go like this:
Objective:
Summary of qualifications (including your “Relevant accomplishments” information.)
Education (because I am just finishing grad school and this is a new career for me, I feel like this needs to be higher on the resume)
Work history, including company, position(s), dates etc.
A chrono resume is good because it shows an employer that you have been gainfully employed, how long you stuck it out, and how you progressed in your jobs.
You can tailor those experiences to fit the job you are applying for now. You can downplay some parts of your audit experience (such as mind-numbing data entry) and pump up your work experience with computers, database management, etc.
Resumes should not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ document, but rather should be tailored for each position you apply for. Shotgunning everyone with the same piece of paper is usually obvious to the person reading the resume.
I agree. And I’ll add, I was in charge of hiring for far too many years, and when I had to slog through 200 resumes for one position, I didn’t want to have to work too hard to decipher the resume styles. That boring old chronological format worked great for me, for the most part.
One thing I would have appreciated (just IMHO, though) is if people would have simply bolded responsibilities at previous jobs or qualifications that pertained to the job for which they were applying. That would have saved a lot of my time. I know, it isn’t commonly done, but I would have loved that. Then again, I was pressed for time when I had to handle hiring. Just my $0.02.