A recent blog post of mine for MENG:

So if you ask ten Recruiters their preference on resume format, content and overall preferences you'll get ten different opinions. There are however, two dominating formats: Chronological and Functional. As far as format is concerned I highly prefer the chronological. I don't waiver on this--it is my recommendation 100 out of 100 times.  

The chronological eliminates guesswork and it provides specifics, i.e. what company and at what stage in your career you accomplished the information on the resume. The functional format drives me nuts. It is not slightly less preferred, it's an all out dislike. The functional increases the amount of guesswork and uncertainty on the part of the reader.  In this market recruiters are looking for four key things as they evaluate resumes:

Industry

Employer

Responsibilities

Accomplishments 

The chronological format allows the reader to quickly assess these four areas. The functional requires the reader to toggle back and forth from the different employers, dates of employment and the accomplishments. It requires the reader to assume when and where you did what you  did. I know some may say "that's the Recruiters' job". Although the market is recovering, there are still many highly qualified applicants and it is your responsibility as an applicant to make it as easy as possible for your audience to efficiently evaluate your experience. 

In the new economic landscape getting more for less is a common theme throughout just about every organization. Companies have looked at all options, from squeezing vendors, stretching payment terms and the most common, asking more from your current employees. Most companies have done all of this and know they can’t beat a dead horse, but they can still work to ensure that new hires, especially at the executive level are willing and able to get ‘er done.

Notice "willing" is in bold and italics? That’s not just putting lipstick on a pig, the emphasis is a fact. Companies are interviewing executives for the willingness to actually do the work and get involved at the point where the rubber hits the road. Execs who say they can-do and are willing to get in the weeds are a dime a dozen. Companies are constructing interviews designed to get at the personality traits for this willingness and in many cases using evaluation tools like the DISC Assessment to help evaluate this personality trait to weed out those who are just paying lip service to this characteristic.

To cut to the chase, as you prepare for your next interview figure out how to tell your story so that it highlights your ability and willingness to get gritty. Getting more for less is here to stay—you might even say it has become cliché.

In an industry where brand standards are of the utmost importance and entire marketing functions are dedicated to ensuring brand integration and consistency, a great irony has emerged.  Social Media—nobody owns it, but everybody’s doing it.  Think about it.  You spend countless hours and dollars on getting multiple internal constituencies and external partners to speak from the same voice, but in one ten second tweet, Joe from Accounting just announced that he (and by association your company) is still “hangin’” from one too many cocktails the night before.

So, the question, “Who owns social media?” has become very real, very quickly.  And in addition to policing errant employee tweeters and putting a social media protocol in place, companies are now acknowledging that social media is just as important as traditional channels when it comes to gaining competitive advantage and connecting with customers.

So who is the social media “owner”? I’ve found if you can answer this question in any way other than “it depends” you’re missing the boat.  For some it’s MarCom, could be PR or even sit in Advertising.  It could fall under customer service and for yet another group of companies, it might mean outsourcing, or conversely, you may have a dedicated internal team that focuses 100% on social media. I’d love to hear from those who are managing Social Media, how you are tackling it and where it fits into your business.

There’s been some thawing in the job market and companies have slowly been refilling the marketing positions they had to cut during the recession.  Here’s an overview of the different phases I’ve seen over the last three quarters and what we can expect for this quarter:

The First Phase: “Intent To Hire”  
A positive shift in the intent  to hire--but the inability of companies to actually do it because they were recruiting for  “The Unicorn”  (see my blog post from Q4).  Basic summary: Companies took six job descriptions, turned them into one and then didn’t fund the position with the appropriate salary.

Enter Phase Two: “The Evaluation”
In the next phase companies acknowledge  that unicorns don’t exist.  They get smart about what the company truly needs from the marketing function.  They ask the question “What are the business goals and how does marketing support that?”.  A deep dive into the job description, not just a cut and paste from past descriptions from five years ago, but an evaluation of what new skills and experiences are required.  This is a great exercise with lots of bargaining about the type of person that is needed--what skills are critical, what industry experience required, what personality traits?  The outcome is a realistic job description that supports the business objectives and allocates the appropriate level of compensation.

Phase Three: “Let’s Hire!”
I think the majority of companies that intend to hire have moved to this phase.  It’s in the early stages, however, meaning the active recruiting for these positions is just beginning. Recruiting will be a challenge because it’s not business as usual.  Many of the positions have never existed in the form they are now.  Evaluating the talent against the criteria is new to everyone.  Candidates have to be extremely adept at homing in on the specifics of the job spec, and those who are influencing the hiring decision have to be extraordinarily disciplined in their approach to evaluating candidates based on the new reality.

Phase Three is going to have its difficulties.  Many positions will need fine tuning as the interviews take place.  There will be adjustments to the roles based on the talent, some business objectives will shift, and others will revert back to their old ways.  All of these things will unfortunately cause hiring to take longer than usual, but that’s to be expected. All things considered, this is the best hiring climate we’ve seen in a long, long time.

In this era of specialization, the marketing and communications industry is looking for a new kind of executive.  Demand has shifted from generalist to specialist, from integrated experience to widget experience.  And like the proverbial chicken and egg, organizations are now faced with a “what comes first?” dilemma of their own.   

Namely, what comes first— the industry or the specialty? 

A key attribute of any marketing executive is industry expertise.  Most clients require candidates to demonstrate experience within their respective industry.  This fact remains, but is now complicated by more explicit job reqs with more specific technical skills.  Finding a high quality social media executive who has the right personality and will mesh with a company’s culture is tough enough.  Finding that marketer plus fifteen years B-to-B experience…five at a law firm…simply makes a thinly sliced pie thinner.  So, clients are asking, do we have to prioritize industry over specialty or vice versa?  Do we have to make concessions because our ideal candidate will not be found within our timeline?

Unfortunately, the answer is "It depends" and in most cases it's a balancing act.  Part of our job as a search consultant is to help craft and  prioritize skills and industry experience and be sure everyone involved in the hiring process has bought into the priorities before you get started on the recruiting.