I’d thought a lot about how to present myself. After all, I’m a designer and my profession is rooted in the fact that good design and thoughtful execution matters. I wanted to reach out to the kinds of people that I wanted to work for and learn from. I also wanted to make an impression. While for the last year I’ve been lucky to have some loyal clients and some really terrific film projects, you cannot escape the fact that we are in a recession, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1920′s. And for every open position who knows how many overly qualified candidates were applying. The Wall Street Journal had even featured a piece about dumbing down the resume.
Definitely not wanting to go that route, I thought a lot about the qualities that spoke out to me and more importantly what would make me take a closer look at a candidate. I just had to remember what it was like when I was clicking through hundreds of resumes for a designer while at Windup.
It came together when I’d come across an article in the Harvard Business Review via CNN. Entitled “The Innovator’s DNA,” the article was about a six year study highlighting the key skills that innovative and creative entrepreneurs share. I connected with it because I saw my own characteristic parallels. So I ran with it. I rewrote my resume, with a fresh approach focusing on the skills that made me an intelligent thinker and innovator. I stressed the importance of “foolish” experimenting and social networking- the ability to put yourself in positions and amongst the unfamiliar with a childlike enthusiasm and taking actions that were open and fearless.
Prior to application, I sent out an email asking for feedback, which was anything but fearless. Admittedly, I had a lot of trepidation and sat for several minutes before hitting send. There were people on that list who I highly respected and their feedback would be taken to heart no matter how much I would steel myself against it, but I hit send and put my head on the chopping block and implored that everyone be brutally honest, that the criticism would push me more than a pat on the back. It’s also just good practice to have another set of eyes for typos.
What came back was a mixed bag, which I suppose was to be expected. Of course I zeroed in on the less than praiseworthy comments. After all, I had chosen these people not only for the fact that many were design savvy but because they were also smart people. I won’t lie, it was deflating of sorts, despite all the compliments. I got more positive feedback than negative but it still planted a seed of doubt. The one comment that stung the most did so because it was also a compliment, “you are too seasoned and too senior to have a resume that (as much as I appreciate the work you put into it) feels to me like a ‘designer’ effort.”
I know that it seemed like a very JV move, I’d put in a lot of time that could have been spent on the long list of side projects that seems to grow exponentially with each passing week that could add to my own portfolio, but I still thought maybe the concept would push beyond my “unseasoned” effort.
So what started out as simply an attempt to redesign my resume has evolved into an experiment. I’ve identified 50 “innovative” ad agencies and design studios and split the list in half. My methodology in the split for the most part was an exacting flip of a coin. Heads they get Resume 1: “5 Elements of Innovative Thinking,” tails Resume 2: “Mihae S Mukaida-Contact Info and Chronological List of Professional Experience.” Some of the bigger agencies have a standardized submission, in which case I’ll have to go with the run of the mill CV, which I’m balancing out by sending those who had advertised their openings with Resume 1. The rationale being that those with job postings will most likely be receiving a boatload of responses.
Putting together the list alone took 2 days of research. I’d looked at AdAge’s 50 Top Interactive Agencies, gone through AIGA’s design archives, Communication Arts, looked at interviews of designers and ad executives, which inevitably led to others. Which, on a side note, you have to check out the site of SCPF. It’s a novel approach, tongue-in-cheeky without going all cheese. Although, I’m still not sure if they were tipping their hat to Alex Bogusky (founding partner of Crispin Porter + Bogusky and recent cover of Fast Company magazine) or snubbing him…but I digress, onto the scientific methodology.
While it won’t be winning any scientific award for exactitude, the objective of the experiment is to determine what kind of response each resume type will garner and hopefully find out why one or the other did or did not elicit an interview. Each agency/studio claims to focus on ideas and innovation. Now, I know I’m making a big assumption but for simplicity sake, let’s say that I’m an ideal candidate, that the major variable for said agency/studio is the resume type.
The experiment in a nutshell: Designer seeks position as Art Director or equivalent at forward thinking agency/studio utilizing two types of resumes.
I’ve thus far identified 4 possible hypothetical outcomes:
1. Resume 1 = Well-Received » Interview
The novel approach grabbed attention and was found to “practice what it preached” resulting in intrigue and further investigation.
2. Resume 1 ≠ Well-Received » Delete
Approach was found to be ill-fitting for a senior level position and application was promptly tossed.
3. Resume 2 = Well-Received » Interview
Work experience documented was sufficient and inline with qualifications sought in potential candidate.
4. Resume 2 ≠ Well-Received » Delete
Either I totally suck, or the resume while adequate was either lost in the shuffle or they received other resumes that worked a little harder for attention.
Data Collection:
Aside from quantifiable results (i.e. getting an interview or not) further investigation will attempt to determine some qualitative data. In fact if you have received my resume and are reading this please go here: http://mihae.qhub.com/
Timeline:
March 10th: Cover letters, resumes, and portfolio links sent to all 50 agencies/studios
March 17th: Follow up communication will be made to those studios which have yet to respond
March 22nd: Data will be interpreted and results published
