Yes - No- Maybe


By knowing about the key differences between a good résumé and a bad résumé, a great deal of time may be saved in the reviewing process. Although it is easy for one to look at a document and decide whether or not it is excellent, it is a good idea to identify the different factors that contribute to a good or a poor résumé. Here are some characteristics that commonly account for résumé ineffectiveness and here is how each of these features can detract from a candidate's appearance:

• Poor Organization. A poorly organized résumé is frustrating to read, it's key information is difficult to locate and it suggests disorganized thinking by the writer.
• Sloppiness. There is no excuse for a sloppy résumé. It suggests carelessness, irresponsibility and indicates that the writer may not perform work thoroughly.
• Wordiness. This suggests that the writer may be naive about proper résumé format and acceptable business protocol. Above all else, it takes too long to get key information from a wordy document.
• Accomplishments are not tied to the Job Function. The disadvantage of this layout is that it fails to sell the candidate's capability, and focuses on functions performed rather than results achieved.
• Insufficient Information. A résumé that fails to state a job objective, educational qualifications, functional responsibilities, major accomplishments, or previous positions provides you with insufficient information. Failure to provide such information indicates that the document has not been thoughtfully constructed.
• Too much Information. A résumé that takes too much time to read and is not concise and to the point has too much information. This suggests that the writer lacks good judgment, and may lack the ability to separate the important from the unimportant.
• Puffery and Bragging. To the experienced employment professional, attempts at self-evaluation in the résumé are amateurish and often insulting. Bragging or puffery may suggest that the writer is insensitive to the professional role of the interviewer or that they may consider the interviewer to be naive.