Professional CV: customer confidentiality

Sam, a software developer, asks: How specific can you be in your CV when talking about projects you have worked on? I am looking to updating my Professional CV and personal website with details of projects I have worked on for external clients in my current role. Is it okay to mention specific clients or not? For instance, I did some work for a well know UK national holiday company. What is acceptable? Thanks!

In answer:
If you are writing your CV up with a STAR system, then the level of detail should be defined as to where you added value, eg:

• Did you lead the whole thing?
• Lead one part of a team, such as graphics or database
• Part of a sub-team, developing graphics?

Customer confidentiality

Whether you can release the name of the customer into the public domain – for that is where it is when you put it on your CV – depends on whether the company itself has released those details into the public? For instance, does your company name or logo appear on the page/s or in a press release? On the example you gave in your question, there is no mention of web designers.

Professional CV focus

The second question is associated with what you add to your attraction to a potential employer if you add a High Street or FTSE name to your CV? Will their brand drag away from your value? Also, if I was interviewing you, I’d be very wary if for a big project you were claiming whole or part credit: I’d want to speak to someone on the client side when referencing you to check how visible you were.

Professional CV: be professional

Make sure the write-up of what you achieved and delivered is right before adding brand names. If you do add brand names, check with others who were on the project to see if they have added the names, and agreeing with your view of yourself. Even if that all checks out, remove the brand names from the public jobs board posted version of your CV – its a great way to dig competitors by “interviewing” desperate job seekers! Just mention “national high street holiday company” etc., if in doubt.

Remember, employers buy the results you create, not a customers brand.

Good Luck!

Sam’s response: Thanks for your words Ian. Regarding the project being in the public domain I hadn’t considered the fact that the association between my company and the client wasn’t public knowledge and as such I guess I cant be shouting about it! Plenty of other useful points there which I’ll be taking on-board.

===================================================================

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

If you want to check the suitability of your existing CV, then get a FREE CV review

If you have any questions about our services, call 0844 884 2825

===================================================================

Social Media

photo credit: mandiberg

Tony asks: I’ve just had an argument with one of my friends who works for the HR dept of her company for disqualifying a candidate, not because of his rich experience, great educational background or excellent references but rather the things she happened to dislike that were on his MySpace profile. Has it come to this, do we know how to make sure all of our google-able references are snooping HR person proof? And does a run-on-blog or dodgy photo speak louder than anything that you might have on your CV?

In answer:
If it is on your Social Media or in your Google CV, it’s fair game. If you put it in the public domain, its public domain information and hence searchable by Google. Which is probably the reason you put it there in the first place, so you could be found by your mates and people who share the same interests.

Working as a recruiter, I interviewed someone to train and an HGV driver 18months ago. One of the pre-requisites of the DVLA is a medical, which checks drug consumption – the medical costs us £150 all in to get undertaken. This chap applies, I Google his name, and up pops his MySpace page which tells me all about the wonders of different types of skunk cannabis and his experiences with them. He comes in for the interview (I was impressed with his CV), denies he takes drugs under our standard questionnaire on site (I made him retake it, saying we had lost it – we hence had a duplicate copy answer), and when confronted in interview with the evidence went “Opps, sorry – I withdraw my application, skunk is too good!”

On average we reject 15% of applicants after Googling their name for driver positions, because of their self-admitted casual drug taking; around 10% still fail the drugs taking part of the test after that. Of those rejected because of Google checks, we get around 10% of those (ie: 1.5%), calling in to find out why. In 2years I have only had one person take that feedback on board, and come back clean 3months later – he’s still with us.

When you know the HR team will be Googling your candidates themselves – between 30% and 70% do – why should we look amateurish not taking on board such information, and vetting out the people we know will not fit their requirements? That is our job as a recruitment company.

There is a fair debate to be had on what is reasonable to reject an applicant on, but as long as its not related to age, race, sex, or ability (ie – the legal requirements of fair selection); then a multitude of reasons could be valid. When 1/3 of applicants don’t include a Cover Letter and are resultantly rejected, many issues could be valid reasons for rejection.

I liked the piece this week in UKRecruiter which addressed this issue, the last point of which said: You can’t call a recruiter checking you out on the internet “sneaky”.  Them following you home and rifling through your bin is sneaky but taking the opportunity to find as much out about you – in the public domain – is fair game.

Good Luck!

If you need an interview winning solution, sign-up for our Professional CV service

Online social networking

From the recruiters stand point, I have watched the debate on online social networks with some interest…..

Digital footprint

For the recruiter, its a godsend! As this article suggests, ANY employer who now doesn’t Google all applicants is missing out on essential information. I interviewed a guy a few months back, who on his CV and a few background checks seemed a 10 out of 10 applicant – however, his MySpace page suggested he enjoyed a regular joint and the odd bit of white powder: oh, and an active social life at the local swingers club.

I personally still believe that all should have the right to a private life, and what goes on behind closed doors/in the bedroom is your choice as a consenting adult. But if you plaster it all over the web, what would you do if you were the employer?

I pointed out to my interviewee that there was much information on him in the public domain, and much as though drugs were more acceptable and part of modern life, the employer I was searching for as a result of their customer contract required all employee’s and hence applicants to under take a drug test on application, and then after at the customers behest. This generally meant that applicants would need to be drug free for at least three months prior to the test, bar the odd joint trace element – could he make that standard? He understood the requirement, and withdrew his application.

I think employers blocking social networks is quite a childish and naive manner in which to address something which is quite essential to the lives of those under 30. I remember when internet access first became widely available to all employees in my former corporate employer, and they introduced a “key word” blocker which meant that (for instance) search strings associated with sex were blocked. My innovative group of engineers found that searching on related words they found in Roget’s Thesaurus allowed to still access such sites – not that they wanted to, they just wanted to prove it could be done.

Today, the number of young people coming into the market is reducing, due to a highly decreased birth rate. Hence, employers wanting new recruits need to take broader attitudes to attracting and retaining employees – cellphone bans in entire campuses, lunching at desks (because there’s no where else to go), and bans on social networking sites all add up to signs of an oppressive/control freak employer. Getting employees to recognise the problems of ringing cellphones to customers and their work mates, providing some form of rest area or access to online entertainment/education, advising on monitoring of networks and expecting employees to only use social networks and MSN messenger during break times – are all signs of an employer trusting employee’s to be adults and make sensible choices. Happy employees attract more happy productive employees, and put recruiters out of a job (Ha – if only! Its interesting to think I have a job because of a low birth rate, and people wanting career development…)

So, back to the debate – is social networking “As much part of life as texting, pop music and fast food” and something “We can no more prevent them than we can prevent gravity. So we might as well get used to using them effectively.”

Good Luck!

If you need an interview winning solution, signup for our Professional CV service