My takeaway is that I guess different people look for different things. Because when I was hiring for a developer, I couldn't care less what your GPA was, and emailing the CEO certainly wouldn't have earned you any bonus points.
I looked for, well, relevant experience and a good cover letter that explains why you want to work here specifically -- as opposed to an obvious copy/paste job. (And, incidentally, the cover letter should be the body of you email message. It's unbelievable how many people attach a professional looking coverletter.doc to an extremely informal email message. Give me a reason to want to fire up Word and read your attachment. </rant>)
But you're probably looking for a cog. You'll get what you look for.
As an applicant, you get what you apply for. That you wouldn't have liked my style doesn't really matter: the person that wants to employ me would like my style.
The problem with all these 'how to apply' topics is that they really mean 'how to apply to me'. But I think there are 2 underlying and competing truths:
1) Be authentic. If you're not the person on your resume, it will come out sooner or later. Hopefully (for everyone) sooner.
2) Be unique. If you don't have a way to differentiate yourself, you don't have a reason to get hired. Of course, what makes you unique for one person won't make you unique (or will make you uniquely annoying) for another.
Of course, these are suggestions for getting the 'right' job - a job where you fit in with the people that hired you.
No, I disagree. The function of a resume isn't to represent you, it's to qualify you for further relevant attention. Thus style may disqualify you without justifying your relevance unless the position itself requires style. If it does, then what you should be submitting is a portfolio and an audition.
This is congruent with why it would be offensive to ask for a resume from somebody you know well. Somebody you know well would have already qualified for your attention some time in the past, and asking for a resume would trivialize that relationship.
I didn't say anything about style. I think it's very hard for a person's style to shine through in a 1 page typed document, so I don't look for it and I don't disqualify people for lacking it.
In fact, I object to the entire idea that you can make a cog/non-cog determination from a sheet of paper.
The resume just gets you in the front door. It gets you an interview where someone can actually try to figure out what kind of an employee you will be. It's a first-round check on whether you even claim to have the relevant experience.
Partially true: It's hard for your style to shine through on an industry standard resume template. So don't use one of those.
You have a blank sheet of paper in front of you, and the only required element is your name up top. Write something that will explain who you are and why every company in the industry should be fighting to retain you. You can get that message across easily in a single page.
But yeah, if you have a resume that starts with "Career Objective", followed into bulleted work experience with the word "liased" appearing 20 times, then you are in fact sending a message. That message is "I'm a cog."
If I should ever have to be back in the situation of applying for jobs, I'll put tracking pixels in my e-mail and my resume document. Resume open rates!
My takeaway is that I guess different people look for different things. Because when I was hiring for a developer, I couldn't care less what your GPA was, and emailing the CEO certainly wouldn't have earned you any bonus points.
I looked for, well, relevant experience and a good cover letter that explains why you want to work here specifically -- as opposed to an obvious copy/paste job. (And, incidentally, the cover letter should be the body of you email message. It's unbelievable how many people attach a professional looking coverletter.doc to an extremely informal email message. Give me a reason to want to fire up Word and read your attachment. </rant>)