Good to see that it is no longer the case in the US, I have been wondering about this for awhile.

Oh, and yes your probably should doubt and critically review, but not dismiss what Guy says.  Only because sometimes even the best are wrong :-)

The article's title says "...to Get a Job in Silicon Valley." Not everywhere. Silicon Valley.
Doesn't anybody read any more?

Oh, but he is definitely right about the one page rule.
It would shock most people to realise to which extent the execs don't concern themselves with the details of someones CV. The bottom line is, whatever you've done, it is what you CAN do that matters. And the way execs tell that is usually by a meeting in person. By the general feeling you project, in other words. And creating the feeling that you are a pompous ranting *** is bad, very bad.

I'm going to have to cast my vote with Guy on this one, not because I think it is the right way to do things, but because it is the real way things get done. Most executives will look at the list of companies and job titles on a resume, maybe where someone went to school, and that will filter out 50% without further ado. Of course this process will not reveal diamonds-in-the-rough, but the people Kawasaki is talking about are by and large looking for diamonds in a platinum setting. If you can't sufficiently stake your claim in one page, then you're going to have a rough road ahead of you. Again, I'm not saying this is the right or best way for employers to work, but it strikes me as being very realistic.  

Michael - Don't worry.  I don't take much at face value. :)

jimnellis - Yes, I can read.  thanks.  This article is general advice that can be extended outside of Silicon Valley.  I also know how to get a job in Silicon Valley.  

David - You and I will have to respectfully disagree on this one.  Maybe Execs don't read resumes, but recruiters and most normal hiring managers do ... and those are the people you have to get past.  

Colin - Hey, if someone can effectively present their pitch in one page, more power to them.  I just don't think most people can, and short changing yourself with one page can hurt.  I worked with two jobseekers with similar years of experience in the last week.  Both had ~15 years of experience in the industry.  The first used one page for his original resume, and it barely told me anything about him.  He had some good experience but he didn't do himself justice by explaining that experience and highlighting the right areas.  The other had a 10 page resume and very impressive experience, but I got lost in the detail.  What I'm advocating is a happy medium (2-3 pages).  Again, if someone can write a stellar one page resume and get the effect Guy is looking for, go for it.  Mere mortals can't do that right though.  That's just my 2cents.

I have to chime in here because I am a firm believer that a one page resume is not always suitable for every situation or every person.  Selling yourself and being able to catch the attention of your target audience is extremely important.  You have an average of 30-60 seconds to make an impact on someone reading your resume.  In many cases, those people are recruiters and hiring managers, not execs per se.  I think the first page of your resume must be formatted appropriately and contain the most vital information about you, but I don't think you need to limit yourself to one page.  In fact, as a recruiter, if I saw a one page resume of someone with years of experience I would have to wonder about it - especially since most folks don't do a one page resume well at all.  Now a really well done multiple page resume with vital information on the first page prompts me to read more.  

So I am agreeing here that if you can accomplish what you need to get across to recruiters and hiring managers in one page - and do it well - then by all means do it.  The simple fact of the matter is that a one page resume is not suitable for all people in all situations and may leave more questions unanswered - and recruiters uninterested - then accomplishing the "I have to hire this person!" moment from a recruiter or hiring manager.

I have always preferred 1 page resumes, but I think that I might have a hybrid approach as an alternative...athough it might really go against the grain of recruiters far and near. ;-)

Zoe is right, people reviewing resumes give it 30-60 seconds for an impression to be made and then it's passed over. Trust me, I do this.  My opinion is that it sucks and I honestly feel guilty about it, but I just don't have the time to spend 10 minutes thoroughly reading every single 2-4 page resume that fits a 'profile.'  That's where I think a hybrid might work.

1st page: Summary of all experience, education, etc. just as you would write it for a complete single page resume.
2nd page (and more I suppose if you REALLY have too): Details tieing back to the 1st page. Consider this what you would write with a 2-3 page resume in mind.

Honestly, I just thought of this while reading the post and comments so it might already be something that's been tried and shot-down in the industry...I have no idea. Or, and this is quite possible, I'm just plain stupid. :-\

Hey Tod - I guess that was what I was advocating, but maybe not as eloquently.  The point is that you put the most important information "above the fold" if you will :)

Did you say that I said that "eloquently"? Have you been drinking already today? ;-)

PingBack from http://www.specht.com.au/michael/2006/08/16/guy-kawasaki-causes-a-stir/

Gretchen, "is" a "bit" of a subject matter expert who seems to be passionate about recruiting, "David."  You sound frustrated.  I'm a recruiter, or you wouldn't have mistook passionate for "pompous."  

To some others,...  maybe you should have two resumes; the one you send into recruiting, aka, the black hole, and the one you present in person, if you make it "past" the black hole.  

I like a "considerate" resume, i.e. a summary, with more info, if I want it. I also like a cover letter, in case I want that too.  You thought I read that first?  You did.  

I am not sure what industry the one-page advocates are in, but it tends to be, that skilled recruiters sum up your background, anyway, to the "execs."  

Honest to pete.  

Not once in ten years' experience has anyone marveled, "Outstanding. A one page RESUME!"  I've never heard anyone, in recruiting, talk about one or two pages, when talking about a candidate.  Ever.

For the record, I find one-page resumes, by experienced people, a potential sign of insecurity and fear of risk-taking, possible disrespect for my time, and possible "concealment."  You want contact, in a high demand market? Paradigm shift:  Execs may not, presumably may not, often will not, be the ones screening your resume.

We, "recruiters"  don't judge you the way you might perceive or have been taught over the years. I've only ever felt "appreciation" for a two page resume, like a "gosh thanks."  G? Z?  

Hi Carmela - Thanks for chiming in. :)  You've never heard anyone say, ""Outstanding. A one page RESUME!"?   Wow, I thought we recruiters say that all the time. :)  Thanks again!

You're welcome, Gretchen!  I come from both sides of the table; job seeker, and recruiter.  I think there remains a conversative force out there, that continues to drive candidates' fear and undermine what should be "common sense."  I think the one page versus two pages is an example of making people iffy.  

Proper cover letters, attire, rehearsing responses; I mean, I've been judged by at least one recruiter for "not playing" the interview game of having the proper banter.     When I meet candidates who have the "proper banter" it limits my ability to visualize how they might fit in.  I'll often say, or I have said, since I am only just now coming back into the came, "Look. I need you to take anything you've ever read about interviews, and throw it out the door.  I don't pull any punches, okay?  It's a match or it's not a match."

I hate the whole concept of "winning" at an interview, for that matter. If you get a job at a company, does that make you a "winner?"  If you didn't get the job does that make a "loser?"

Candidates?  Go ahead and take some risks, throw in some humor into those cover letters, show some confidence.  Trust yourself, go with your gut, use common sense.  

My resume is two pages. Gretchen, sightly off topic, ;0 you were quoted in the "Seattle Times" last year as a subject matter expert on "resumes."  Tee hee.  The article described job candidates, who while caught by the crash, did things out of their field, e.g. waitressing, construction.  The article questioned whether candidates should lie about it or not on their resumes.

Could you redress this, as a subject matter expert, to include the 'normality" of candidates, caught by the crash, now making a return?  You were with Microsoft I believe, before, during and well after the crash.

You have a unique historical perspective with an insider's view:  You could help many people as a voice of encouragement to both candidates and hiring authorities. For example, I had been out of my field for six years, but still got a face to face interview, with the big G, even with a "two page" resume. :) Until then, based upon recruiters' feedback, I had no idea my resume looked "normal" and that candidates such as I, were making a return.  We read to know we are not alone (C.S. Lewis), please, consider?    

Well, at least their Chief People Yahoo!, Libby Sartain, thinks like we do.  Guy's having "HR and...

Carmela.  Yep, my resume is 2 pages as well.

Re: how to address "odd jobs" held during and after the crash, that's a great question.   I believe most recruiters do want to see a candidate was working, as I said in the article, but it's also important to lead with the most relevant data.  I can definitely address this in a future blog post.

<i>I hate the whole concept of "winning" at an interview, for that matter. If you get a job at a company, does that make you a "winner?"  If you didn't get the job does that make a "loser?" </I>

Chunk the up a level - I am not on my hands an knees begging for a jobe with the interviewer.  I'm also interviewing the prospective employer.  Using the interview process to identify that a well paid and interesting job would be a bad fitting corporate culture for me counts as a win (except for that time I ignored my instincts and took the job anyway....

Martin. I was speaking for myself, as a "job seeker." Earlier this year,  I caught myself briefly in the trappings of outer-validation, when it came to a particular company.  

I'm with you on evaluating the employer, and in particular, its recruiting representatives.  You may imagine how bizarre it is at times to be a recruiter, going through the recruiting process.

I shake my head in amazement that so few inhouse recruiters seem to realize they "represent" a company, and that they are "making" a public impression.  Mom, will hear about it. Friends and curiosity seekers, professional contacts will hear about it in response to, "What's new? What are you up to these days?"  

I have often been embarrased by my profession,  i.e. late interviews without apology, radio silence, hubris, spam, cluelessness, and any number of other discourtesies as espoused on slashdot.org, MSFT's Jobs Blog, usenet groups, personal blogs, and so on. I even had a co-worker once who screamed at and bullied candidates that didn't take the job.  She bragged about it even.

Carmela - Just out of curiosity, what about Microsoft's JobsBlog embarrassed you about the profession?  Hope it wasn't me  ... <yikes> ...

Good golly, girl, no!  r u kidding?   No it was all those disillusioned, sad, frustrated, angry, tell tale job candidates (geeks), posting to you about their bad experiences, mostly inexclusive to MSFT.  I'd read candidates' experience of shoddy treatment by other recruiters, and I'd get sick.  I would go to slashdot and see sheer hatred for recruiters.  I'd go elsewhere and see defenses by recruiters, "Stop lying to us!" Tit for tat, bomp bomp on the head.

I am kind of wacky passionate, geek-like, about recruiting.  I know how vulnerable candidates' egos really are, whether they need, want, desire the job or not.  I myself, was a job seeker in Seattle 1999 and later during the crash in 2000, and I was appalled by the "conduct" of my peers. I was embarrassed.  

No Gretchen, I'm an ally, if anything.   You tried to understand and "fix things" on Job Logs.  If you look back to comments, I applauded you in your early days on JobSyntax, for improving the image of recruiters, and raising the bar for others.

oh, ok.  Just checking.  :)  I know I did offend people from time to time so I was ready to apologize if necessary . :)

Yeah, the horror stories posted on JobsBlog were awfully frightening.  You should have seen the ones I received via email. I admit it ... that was the part of my job that I disliked the most.  It gets old defending your profession when you know you're a great recruiter ... but there's a whole lot of stinkers out there.  And those slashdotters, jeez.  Talk about a few recruiters giving everyone else a bad rap.  I can't stand to read comments about recruiters on slashdot.  

I'm "wacky passionate, geek-like, about recruiting," too. :)

Today, I’m happy to introduce the Media Division of JobSyntax, Inc:&amp;nbsp; CareerBytes.&amp;nbsp; Sounds...