by Mark Oppenheim
Hiring season is in full gear, which means that nonprofit boards and CEOs will soon be busy analyzing resumes of execs they might hire.
Here are things to keep in mind that will improve your review process, and the points will also be useful to those editing their resumes.
—
The Resume Writer’s purpose vs. the Reviewer’s purpose
The person writing a resume wants to be selected for a job that’s more interesting and fulfilling than whatever they’re currently doing. Usually, but not always, they want a job that pays more.
The person reviewing a resume has a job to offer that the resume writer might want.
When counterparts write and read a resume, each side is trying to figure out whether the other fulfills their needs. The writer is also selling their value proposition to the reader.
Candidate resumes and cover letters provide valuable insight even when the material is poorly constructed or ghost-written.
Most candidates who write resumes never compare their material with that of their competitors for jobs. Readers of resumes can compare and contrast what different candidates present. In this sense, the reader has an advantage over the writer.
Some candidates outsource writing resumes and cover letters. While this might be convenient, quality is generally mediocre. Resume writers generally don’t specialize in particular industries or functions, and their resume construction skills are generally tailored to the needs of their younger less accomplished clientele. AIs that help candidates construct resumes also generate a mediocre product – neither terrible nor great and certainly lacking distinction from candidate to candidate. We sometimes receive resumes from different candidates that look very similar, which never used to happen. A skilled interviewer will quickly determine that something is off when language used in a candidate’s resume doesn’t match language used by the candidate during interviews. We’re now asking candidates whether they wrote their own material.
Clients will sometimes raise certain points when they suspect a candidate’s material was outsourced, here presented as a paraphrased question: “Is the candidate seriously committed to us and our mission, and do they know enough for the job, if they need to submit generic ghost-written material?” It’s not a question we can answer without deep-dive interviews, but the fact that people ask is something candidates should consider.
All this said, candidates should not be immediately rejected because they have a poorly written or ghost-written resume, nor should they be accepted because their resume is well written or ghost-written. A perfect resume doesn’t necessarily mean a candidate is perfect; a flawed resume doesn’t necessarily mean a candidate is flawed.
Resumes and cover letters usually contain certain factual information, and they definitely will show you what a candidate believes is acceptable in such documents. Submitted material can tell you: what points a candidate thinks are important; whether they like data & metrics or adjectives & buzzwords; whether they are emotionally or factually driven; and whether they have useful networks and/or are focused on name dropping in its various forms.
How candidates respond to input from clients or our team on their resume is also quite revealing. Our firm doesn’t compose resumes for others; however, we do provide candidates with an analysis of how particular clients are likely to read and interpret their materials. Some candidates are annoyed when advised that important data is omitted or when asked to explain things; some are grateful for the chance to enhance material before submission and will undertake a substantial re-write. Every interaction with candidates enables the reviewer to collect intel on candidate competencies, their style, communication skills, and their responses to questions.
Most resumes include words and phrases that function as signals, but add no information on the candidate’s performance or experience.
Most all resumes have a selection of the following adjectives in some order:
adaptable, articulate, committed, creative, driven, dynamic, efficient, enthusiastic, entrepreneurial, goals-oriented, experienced, graceful, innovative, insightful, mission-driven, nurturing, partner, passionate, refined, resilient, seasoned, skilled or skillful, solutions-oriented, strategic or strategize, thoughtful, thrive, vision or visionary.
Such words are not data or evidence; rather these words signal to readers that the candidate will be characterized this way after they are hired. It is a form of imprinting, branding and marketing.
Inclusion of buzzwords into candidate submissions plays a similar role. In an earlier era of recruiting, inclusion of buzzwords and industry aligned phrases might have been a marker for deep sector or functional knowledge. Not so in an era where buzzwords are easily generated by AI editing tools (AIs love buzzwords). Their inclusion in written material is no longer a marker of sector or functional knowledge.
When reading resumes, you should absolutely take note of how adjectives, buzzwords and descriptive language are employed by candidates as they try to imprint into your mind a perception of their value. Take note of whether it is skillfully done or unskillfully attempted. As you evaluate a candidate’s self-branding skills, decide whether that particular ability might be useful for your organization. But be careful: an ability to create an impression of value in the mind of someone hiring doesn’t necessarily translate into success as a CEO, COO, CFO or even as the organization’s fundraising or marketing lead.
Look for hard data on candidate accomplishments in the form of numbers: $$$, people served (including metrics like attendance), changes instituted, services improved, constituents helped… and ensure that others surrounding candidates can confirm their claimed contribution.
Nonprofits deliver services to people. They advocate for certain policies or deliver certain programs and services. They improve the environment or stage performances and exhibitions. They fund initiatives and educate or care for others. All of this can be measured. Indeed, it should be measured. Our advice to those evaluating resumes is this: pay close attention to data that is included and take note of data that should be included but is missing.
A surprising number of resumes fail to provide concrete information on the results candidates have produced. When we recruit a fundraising CEO or a chief fundraiser, a certain number of submitted resumes will not provide specific information on amounts raised. When we recruit finance leaders, we sometimes get resumes without information on budgets, systems, compliance challenges and controls. When we recruit program leaders, we sometimes get resumes that don’t describe who was served, the kinds of services provided (also exhibitions, performances, etc), the impact of the service, etc. An increasing number of resumes look like job descriptions where functions are described but information on accomplishments is missing.
Context is everything when it comes to understanding data on a candidate’s accomplishments. We never hesitate to listen to the insights of third parties that have experienced a candidate’s work and who have had a greater stake in the outcomes previously delivered by that candidate. Views on a candidate’s past performance won’t necessarily all be identical, so patterns can emerge that grant insight into how that candidate may function in a new job.
The most useful element of any resume is data that can be checked. If such data is lacking, ask for it and be very careful about hiring someone who is unable or unwilling to provide it.
Leaders deliver results by leveraging a) workflows, b) knowledge, c) style and d) networks.
Management isn’t magic. Management is about delivering results by leveraging workflows, knowledge, style and networks within the operating context of particular organizations. Resumes should describe this. While a job description can simply list job responsibilities and reporting relationships, a candidate’s resume is about their specific accomplishments when they held particular jobs. When documents submitted by candidates fail to provide hard and soft data on what those candidate accomplished and how accomplishments were delivered, then the material amounts to repackaged job descriptions not resumes. We are seeing this a lot from people who use AIs to construct their material.
Resumes with detail on a candidate’s claimed accomplishments enable the person hiring to verify information. During interviews candidates can fill in blanks by telling stories describing how teams came together to accomplish outcomes. Candidates can identify people who might later serve as references to verify information. Certain information can be verified by cross-referencing data that is accessible online.
Those hiring a chief or other executive can and should connect dots between each candidate’s claimed accomplishments and their use of workflows, knowledge, style and networks. It’s a red flag to have results and accomplishments claimed by a candidate not match their detailed knowledge of how those results were delivered.
This is perhaps the most important and most difficult aspect of candidate evaluation. It is where all of the above points come together.
Final thoughts on this topic…
- Avoid falling in “love” when recruiting a new leader.
- Instead fall into “like” based on concrete data showing the person can deliver what your nonprofit needs in the next 3 to 5 years.
- Take note of strengths and weaknesses, because we all have both. Be objective, realistic and plan in advance to finesse candidate weaknesses.
- Avoid being charmed or diverted by magical interactions, unverified claims and candidate attempts to imprint an image of their value into your mind.
We have all been candidates at one point or another, and analyzing candidate resumes is well within the grasp of everyone who hires. It requires assembling data, understanding nonprofit operating contexts and workflows, an ability to disentangle and follow threads of information, and above all a focus on evidence verified through third parties.
—
To receive a call to discuss these and other nonprofit leadership matters with the author, email Mark Oppenheim at marko@moppenheim.com.