hard facts, bad resumes

The story goes that a resume should show results. Words ending with 'ed' are supposed to be good:    ...saved, completed, increased, launched...

Figures, too, are to be applied liberally:     ...300,000 dollars, 100% of projects, sales by 30%, 6 new products...

Doing so is meant to indicate real value, real productivity, and real accomplishment.    Humor me while I share my alternative: the gerunds and sunflowers approach.

Use -ing words only:    ...Planning, Teaching, Writing, Managing...

Sprinkle with whatever toppings go with them:   ...for expansion, good decision-making, user-stories, during transition...

For example...

Say I were hiring an investment portfolio manager last summer for a bazillion-dollars stuffed under my mattress: Those submitting resume's of the -ed type would show me how much they earned, how their assets were valued, and whether their portfolios had increased during their tenure.  And lo and behold, the marketplace would be rife with well-qualified candidates.

And, had I choosen one of them, and let them excercise their proven talents on my previously safe money-bags, I'd have lost a great deal of cash in the time since.   What did all their -ed words mean?   Doodley-squat.

But what if I had choosen an odd apple from the bunch, the one wall-street whacko who put forcasting, advising, and modeling on a resume?

I'd have kept my money under the matress, and had my own weather forecaster to advise me what to wear each day while wearing alluring outfits!

The point is....

1) Accomplishing stuff means doodly-squat unless you can articulate how you accomplished it. 

(If you can't articulate it, how are you going to do it again?)

2) Articulating how you did something requires gerunds.   

(I wrote this by writing without properly planning)