stop telling me you're a great writer

It's not a great idea -- nor is it necessary -- to brag about your writing skills in your cover letter or on your resume, via subjective assessments of yourself like the following that I've seen recently:

"Outstanding writing skills"

"Highly conceptual and great at expressing ideas in a fresh, new way"

"Able to present strategic concepts in clear, persuasive, technically sound writing"

Here's why. If you have great writing skills, I'm going to see them in the cover letter. You don't have to tell me they're there. If I care about candidates' writing skills (and oh, how I do), I'm going to be looking for them in your cover letter and other communications anyway.

But all too often, candidates give me their own assessment of their writing skills. And when it doesn't match up with the not-so-great cover letter they've written -- which is often the case -- now I'm doubting the other subjective statements they have on their resume too. If they're wrong about their writing skills, why wouldn't I think they might be wrong about other skills they're claiming for themselves?

Frankly, I don't like any subjective statements on a resume. As I've written before, resumes should present factual information about what you've done, not subjective self-assessments. That's because I don't yet know enough about you to have any idea if yours is reliable or not.

Telling me that you're a fantastic writer when I can see that you're not pretty much answers that question for me, and not in a good way.

Now, you might think, "But since I know that I am a great writer, it's okay for me to do this." And maybe you really are (although a lot of people think they are when they're not). But you still shouldn't do it. If you're a great writer and you want me to know that, write a great cover letter. That's how I'll know.

don't use a functional resume

A reader writes:

In your "7 Things To Leave Off a Resume" article, you mentioned picking between chronological and functional resumes. Can you comment on why hiring managers prefer one over the other?

When I apply to jobs that are outside my field, I generally submit a combination functional-chronological resume so the company can see how my skills can be transferred to the new field/position but still see my employment history. Do you think this is effective, or am I hurting my chances?

It sounds like you're using a chronological resume (one that lists your job history by position, with dates, so that it's clear what you were doing when), with the addition of a "functional" summary. I think that's fine -- it's when someone excludes the chronology altogether that I (and many other hiring managers) see a red flag.

For people who don't know, a functional resume just lists skills and abilities, without including a chronological job history. Many hiring managers, me included, hate them.

Generally, the first thing I think when I see them is, "What is this candidate trying to hide?" That's because people tend to use functional resumes when they're trying to hide an employment gap, or job-hopping, or outdated skills (because it matters if your Web design experience is from 10 years ago or one year ago), or other things I'd rather know about. And if I do remain interested in the candidate, the first thing I'm going to do when I talk to them is ask them to walk me through their job history, with dates -- and it's going to annoy me that I have to, and if I have other good candidates I may not even bother.

So never use just a functional resume. But what you're talking about -- chronological plus -- should be just fine.

take that objective off your resume

Do you have an objective listed at the top of your resume? If so, get rid of it.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I explain why. Please head over there, read, and leave your own opinion in the comments section there.