- Văn bản
- Lịch sử
The Ethics of Resume WritingClinton
The Ethics of Resume Writing
Clinton D. Korver
MAY 19, 2008
SAVE
SHARE
COMMENT
TEXT SIZE
PRINT
RECOMMENDED
HBR's 10 Must Reads Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
Playing to Win Strategy Toolkit
STRATEGY & EXECUTION BOOK Roger L. Martin, Jennifer Riel, A.G. Lafley
250.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
HBR's 10 Must Reads eBook Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
You are an up and coming leader and have just found the perfect stretch job opportunity. How much can you “dress up” your resume to make yourself as strong a candidate as possible without crossing the ethical line of deception?
Consider a few conflicting thoughts:
Over 50% of people lie on their resume.
A Monster.com blog about the dangers of lying on your resume elicited 60 comments from job seekers recommending lying and only 46 discouraging it. Recommenders justified lying by claiming: everyone else is doing it, companies lie about job requirements, and it’s hard to get a good job.
Executives caught lying on their resumes often lose their jobs. Consider the high profile exits at Radio Shack, MIT, Notre Dame, and Herbalife.
If you are reading this blog, you probably are not tempted by outright fabrication. But what about the following:
Claiming a degree that was not earned because you did most of the work and were only a few credits short.
Creating a more impressive job title because you were already doing all of the work of that position.
Claiming a team’s contributions as your own, because other members did not carry their weight.
Inflating the number of people or range of functions for which you had direct responsibility because you really did have a great deal of influence over them
These are called rationalizations — constructing a justification for a decision you suspect is really flawed. By devising specious but self-satisfying reasons for acting you purposefully blur right and wrong. You create a story that is seemingly legitimate, but upon any close examination doesn’t hold up. Rationalizations are insidious because you begin to fool yourself. You develop habits of distorted thinking.
So where is the line? You need to decide that for yourself. Here are some tests to keep your thinking clear:
Other-shoe test. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot and you were the hiring manager looking at this resume? What assumptions would you draw and would they be accurate?
Front-page test. Would you think the same way if your accomplishment in question were reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? Or your prior employer’s internal newsletter?
But wait, you say. My resume doesn’t quite pass these tests, but there is something real underneath my claims, and I do not want to sell myself short.
When in doubt, ask an old boss. While asking an old boss may be difficult, it has many benefits. Precisely because it is difficult, it forces you to think clearly and sometimes creatively. Asking also verifies the accuracy of your claims, trains your prior boss in how to represent you during reference checks, and sometimes your old boss may give you better ways to represent yourself.
A former VP of Engineering from one of my startups recently asked me if he could call himself a co-founder even though he joined nine months after the company started. Given his months without salary and his co-founder like commitment to the company, I enthusiastically agreed. I now think and talk about his employment differently. But if he had joined a few months later or had been on salary a few months sooner, I would have said “no.”
What do you think? Is there ever a time when it is OK to lie on a resume? How have you resolved questions of how to tell the best story possible without crossing the line?
Clinton D. Korver
MAY 19, 2008
SAVE
SHARE
COMMENT
TEXT SIZE
RECOMMENDED
HBR's 10 Must Reads Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
Playing to Win Strategy Toolkit
STRATEGY & EXECUTION BOOK Roger L. Martin, Jennifer Riel, A.G. Lafley
250.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
HBR's 10 Must Reads eBook Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
You are an up and coming leader and have just found the perfect stretch job opportunity. How much can you “dress up” your resume to make yourself as strong a candidate as possible without crossing the ethical line of deception?
Consider a few conflicting thoughts:
Over 50% of people lie on their resume.
A Monster.com blog about the dangers of lying on your resume elicited 60 comments from job seekers recommending lying and only 46 discouraging it. Recommenders justified lying by claiming: everyone else is doing it, companies lie about job requirements, and it’s hard to get a good job.
Executives caught lying on their resumes often lose their jobs. Consider the high profile exits at Radio Shack, MIT, Notre Dame, and Herbalife.
If you are reading this blog, you probably are not tempted by outright fabrication. But what about the following:
Claiming a degree that was not earned because you did most of the work and were only a few credits short.
Creating a more impressive job title because you were already doing all of the work of that position.
Claiming a team’s contributions as your own, because other members did not carry their weight.
Inflating the number of people or range of functions for which you had direct responsibility because you really did have a great deal of influence over them
These are called rationalizations — constructing a justification for a decision you suspect is really flawed. By devising specious but self-satisfying reasons for acting you purposefully blur right and wrong. You create a story that is seemingly legitimate, but upon any close examination doesn’t hold up. Rationalizations are insidious because you begin to fool yourself. You develop habits of distorted thinking.
So where is the line? You need to decide that for yourself. Here are some tests to keep your thinking clear:
Other-shoe test. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot and you were the hiring manager looking at this resume? What assumptions would you draw and would they be accurate?
Front-page test. Would you think the same way if your accomplishment in question were reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? Or your prior employer’s internal newsletter?
But wait, you say. My resume doesn’t quite pass these tests, but there is something real underneath my claims, and I do not want to sell myself short.
When in doubt, ask an old boss. While asking an old boss may be difficult, it has many benefits. Precisely because it is difficult, it forces you to think clearly and sometimes creatively. Asking also verifies the accuracy of your claims, trains your prior boss in how to represent you during reference checks, and sometimes your old boss may give you better ways to represent yourself.
A former VP of Engineering from one of my startups recently asked me if he could call himself a co-founder even though he joined nine months after the company started. Given his months without salary and his co-founder like commitment to the company, I enthusiastically agreed. I now think and talk about his employment differently. But if he had joined a few months later or had been on salary a few months sooner, I would have said “no.”
What do you think? Is there ever a time when it is OK to lie on a resume? How have you resolved questions of how to tell the best story possible without crossing the line?
0/5000
Đạo đức của văn bản sơ yếu lý lịchClinton mất Korver19 THÁNG 5 NĂM 2008TIẾT KIỆM CHIA SẺ BÌNH LUẬN CỠ CHỮ IN KHUYẾN CÁOHBR của 10 phải đọc tập đóng hộpCuốn sách lãnh đạo & quản lý con người 125,00 THÊM VÀO GIỎ HÀNG TIẾT KIỆM CHIA SẺChơi để giành chiến thắng chiến lược ToolkitChiến lược & thực hiện cuốn sách Roger L. Martin, Jennifer Riel, AG Lafley250,00 THÊM VÀO GIỎ HÀNG TIẾT KIỆM CHIA SẺHBR của 10 phải đọc eBook Box SetCuốn sách lãnh đạo & quản lý con người 125,00 THÊM VÀO GIỎ HÀNG TIẾT KIỆM CHIA SẺBạn là một nhà lãnh đạo lên và sắp tới và chỉ có cơ hội công việc căng ra hoàn hảo. Bao nhiêu có thể bạn "ăn mặc" resume của bạn để làm cho mình như mạnh mẽ một ứng cử viên càng tốt mà không đi qua đường dây đạo đức của lường gạt?Xem xét một số những suy nghĩ xung đột:Hơn 50% số người nói dối về lý lịch của họ.Một blog Monster.com về sự nguy hiểm của nằm trên resume của bạn elicited 60 bình luận từ việc giới thiệu nằm và 46 duy nhất ngăn cản nó. Recommenders lý nằm bằng cách tuyên bố: tất cả mọi người khác làm việc đó, công ty nói dối về yêu cầu công việc, và đó là khó khăn để có được một công việc tốt.Điều hành bắt nằm trên hồ sơ của họ thường mất công việc của họ. Xem xét hồ sơ cao ra khỏi tại Radio Shack, MIT, Notre Dame và Herbalife.Nếu bạn đang đọc blog này, bạn có thể được không bị cám dỗ bởi hoàn toàn chế tạo. Nhưng những gì về những điều sau đây:Tuyên bố một mức độ mà không thu được bởi vì bạn đã làm hầu hết các công việc và đã là chỉ một vài tín dụng ngắn.Tạo ra một tiêu đề công việc ấn tượng hơn bởi vì bạn đã làm tất cả công việc của vị trí đó.Tuyên bố của một đội bóng đóng góp như là của riêng bạn, bởi vì các thành viên khác không mang theo trọng lượng của họ.Lạm phát số người hoặc loạt các chức năng mà bạn có trách nhiệm trực tiếp bởi vì bạn thực sự đã có rất nhiều ảnh hưởng hơn họChúng được gọi là rationalizations-xây dựng một biện minh cho một quyết định bạn nghi ngờ thực sự là thiếu sót. Bởi specious nhưng tự thoả mãn các lý do cho hành động bạn cố tình đặt ra mờ đúng và sai. Bạn tạo ra một câu chuyện mà dường như hợp pháp, nhưng sau khi bất kỳ kiểm tra chặt chẽ không giữ. Rationalizations là insidious, bởi vì bạn bắt đầu để đánh lừa mình. Bạn phát triển các thói quen suy nghĩ méo.Vì vậy, mà là dòng? Bạn cần phải quyết định cho chính mình. Dưới đây là một số xét nghiệm để giữ cho suy nghĩ của bạn rõ ràng:Kiểm tra khác Đánh giày. Làm thế nào bạn sẽ cảm thấy nếu giày trên bàn chân khác và bạn là người quản lý tuyển dụng nhìn vào hồ sơ này? Giả định những gì sẽ bạn vẽ và họ sẽ chính xác?Kiểm tra trước. Bạn sẽ nghĩ theo cùng một cách nếu hoàn thành của bạn trong câu hỏi đã được báo cáo trên trang đầu của Wall Street Journal? Hoặc bản tin nội bộ của bạn nhà tuyển dụng trước?Nhưng chờ đợi, bạn nói. Tiếp tục của tôi khá không vượt qua những thử nghiệm này, nhưng đó là một cái gì đó thực sự bên dưới tuyên bố của tôi, và tôi không muốn bán mình ngắn.Khi nghi ngờ, yêu cầu một ông chủ cũ. Trong khi yêu cầu một ông chủ cũ có thể được khó khăn, đô thị này có nhiều lợi ích. Chính xác vì nó là khó khăn, nó buộc bạn phải suy nghĩ rõ ràng và đôi khi sáng tạo. Cũng yêu cầu xác minh tính chính xác của tuyên bố của bạn, tàu ông chủ của bạn trước khi làm thế nào để đại diện cho bạn trong kiểm tra tài liệu tham khảo, và đôi khi ông chủ cũ của bạn có thể cung cấp cho bạn những cách tốt hơn để đại diện cho mình.Một cựu VP của kỹ thuật từ một trong khởi động của tôi gần đây đã hỏi tôi nếu ông có thể gọi mình người đồng sáng lập ngay cả khi ông gia nhập chín tháng sau khi công ty bắt đầu. Tôi đưa ra tháng của ông mà không có lương và đồng sáng lập của mình như cam kết công ty, nhiệt tình đồng ý. Tôi bây giờ nghĩ và nói chuyện về việc làm của mình một cách khác nhau. Nhưng nếu ông đã gia nhập một vài tháng sau đó hoặc đã trên tiền lương một vài tháng sớm hơn, tôi đã có thể nói "không."Bạn nghĩ gì? Có bao giờ là một thời gian khi nó là OK để nằm trên một resume? Làm thế nào bạn đã giải quyết các câu hỏi về làm thế nào để kể câu chuyện tốt nhất có thể mà không có băng qua đường?
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..
The Ethics of Resume Writing
Clinton D. Korver
MAY 19, 2008
SAVE
SHARE
COMMENT
TEXT SIZE
PRINT
RECOMMENDED
HBR's 10 Must Reads Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
Playing to Win Strategy Toolkit
STRATEGY & EXECUTION BOOK Roger L. Martin, Jennifer Riel, A.G. Lafley
250.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
HBR's 10 Must Reads eBook Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
You are an up and coming leader and have just found the perfect stretch job opportunity. How much can you “dress up” your resume to make yourself as strong a candidate as possible without crossing the ethical line of deception?
Consider a few conflicting thoughts:
Over 50% of people lie on their resume.
A Monster.com blog about the dangers of lying on your resume elicited 60 comments from job seekers recommending lying and only 46 discouraging it. Recommenders justified lying by claiming: everyone else is doing it, companies lie about job requirements, and it’s hard to get a good job.
Executives caught lying on their resumes often lose their jobs. Consider the high profile exits at Radio Shack, MIT, Notre Dame, and Herbalife.
If you are reading this blog, you probably are not tempted by outright fabrication. But what about the following:
Claiming a degree that was not earned because you did most of the work and were only a few credits short.
Creating a more impressive job title because you were already doing all of the work of that position.
Claiming a team’s contributions as your own, because other members did not carry their weight.
Inflating the number of people or range of functions for which you had direct responsibility because you really did have a great deal of influence over them
These are called rationalizations — constructing a justification for a decision you suspect is really flawed. By devising specious but self-satisfying reasons for acting you purposefully blur right and wrong. You create a story that is seemingly legitimate, but upon any close examination doesn’t hold up. Rationalizations are insidious because you begin to fool yourself. You develop habits of distorted thinking.
So where is the line? You need to decide that for yourself. Here are some tests to keep your thinking clear:
Other-shoe test. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot and you were the hiring manager looking at this resume? What assumptions would you draw and would they be accurate?
Front-page test. Would you think the same way if your accomplishment in question were reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? Or your prior employer’s internal newsletter?
But wait, you say. My resume doesn’t quite pass these tests, but there is something real underneath my claims, and I do not want to sell myself short.
When in doubt, ask an old boss. While asking an old boss may be difficult, it has many benefits. Precisely because it is difficult, it forces you to think clearly and sometimes creatively. Asking also verifies the accuracy of your claims, trains your prior boss in how to represent you during reference checks, and sometimes your old boss may give you better ways to represent yourself.
A former VP of Engineering from one of my startups recently asked me if he could call himself a co-founder even though he joined nine months after the company started. Given his months without salary and his co-founder like commitment to the company, I enthusiastically agreed. I now think and talk about his employment differently. But if he had joined a few months later or had been on salary a few months sooner, I would have said “no.”
What do you think? Is there ever a time when it is OK to lie on a resume? How have you resolved questions of how to tell the best story possible without crossing the line?
Clinton D. Korver
MAY 19, 2008
SAVE
SHARE
COMMENT
TEXT SIZE
RECOMMENDED
HBR's 10 Must Reads Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
Playing to Win Strategy Toolkit
STRATEGY & EXECUTION BOOK Roger L. Martin, Jennifer Riel, A.G. Lafley
250.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
HBR's 10 Must Reads eBook Boxed Set
LEADERSHIP & MANAGING PEOPLE BOOK
125.00 ADD TO CART
SAVE SHARE
You are an up and coming leader and have just found the perfect stretch job opportunity. How much can you “dress up” your resume to make yourself as strong a candidate as possible without crossing the ethical line of deception?
Consider a few conflicting thoughts:
Over 50% of people lie on their resume.
A Monster.com blog about the dangers of lying on your resume elicited 60 comments from job seekers recommending lying and only 46 discouraging it. Recommenders justified lying by claiming: everyone else is doing it, companies lie about job requirements, and it’s hard to get a good job.
Executives caught lying on their resumes often lose their jobs. Consider the high profile exits at Radio Shack, MIT, Notre Dame, and Herbalife.
If you are reading this blog, you probably are not tempted by outright fabrication. But what about the following:
Claiming a degree that was not earned because you did most of the work and were only a few credits short.
Creating a more impressive job title because you were already doing all of the work of that position.
Claiming a team’s contributions as your own, because other members did not carry their weight.
Inflating the number of people or range of functions for which you had direct responsibility because you really did have a great deal of influence over them
These are called rationalizations — constructing a justification for a decision you suspect is really flawed. By devising specious but self-satisfying reasons for acting you purposefully blur right and wrong. You create a story that is seemingly legitimate, but upon any close examination doesn’t hold up. Rationalizations are insidious because you begin to fool yourself. You develop habits of distorted thinking.
So where is the line? You need to decide that for yourself. Here are some tests to keep your thinking clear:
Other-shoe test. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot and you were the hiring manager looking at this resume? What assumptions would you draw and would they be accurate?
Front-page test. Would you think the same way if your accomplishment in question were reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? Or your prior employer’s internal newsletter?
But wait, you say. My resume doesn’t quite pass these tests, but there is something real underneath my claims, and I do not want to sell myself short.
When in doubt, ask an old boss. While asking an old boss may be difficult, it has many benefits. Precisely because it is difficult, it forces you to think clearly and sometimes creatively. Asking also verifies the accuracy of your claims, trains your prior boss in how to represent you during reference checks, and sometimes your old boss may give you better ways to represent yourself.
A former VP of Engineering from one of my startups recently asked me if he could call himself a co-founder even though he joined nine months after the company started. Given his months without salary and his co-founder like commitment to the company, I enthusiastically agreed. I now think and talk about his employment differently. But if he had joined a few months later or had been on salary a few months sooner, I would have said “no.”
What do you think? Is there ever a time when it is OK to lie on a resume? How have you resolved questions of how to tell the best story possible without crossing the line?
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..
Các ngôn ngữ khác
Hỗ trợ công cụ dịch thuật: Albania, Amharic, Anh, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ba Lan, Ba Tư, Bantu, Basque, Belarus, Bengal, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Bồ Đào Nha, Catalan, Cebuano, Chichewa, Corsi, Creole (Haiti), Croatia, Do Thái, Estonia, Filipino, Frisia, Gael Scotland, Galicia, George, Gujarat, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Hungary, Hy Lạp, Hà Lan, Hà Lan (Nam Phi), Hàn, Iceland, Igbo, Ireland, Java, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Klingon, Kurd, Kyrgyz, Latinh, Latvia, Litva, Luxembourg, Lào, Macedonia, Malagasy, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Myanmar, Mã Lai, Mông Cổ, Na Uy, Nepal, Nga, Nhật, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Pháp, Phát hiện ngôn ngữ, Phần Lan, Punjab, Quốc tế ngữ, Rumani, Samoa, Serbia, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenia, Somali, Sunda, Swahili, Séc, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thái, Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ, Thụy Điển, Tiếng Indonesia, Tiếng Ý, Trung, Trung (Phồn thể), Turkmen, Tây Ban Nha, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Việt, Xứ Wales, Yiddish, Yoruba, Zulu, Đan Mạch, Đức, Ả Rập, dịch ngôn ngữ.
- anh ta treo cái ổ cắm điện lên trên tườn
- Buổi chiều
- mày điên à. tao đang ngủ, không đi đâu
- tôi bắt đầu ganh tỵ
- J'ai fini pour aujourd'hui
- Start again from the beginning
- However, the two strategies have the sam
- refund
- Thanh tra, kiểm tra, xử lý vi phạm, giải
- hạnh phúc không phải chặng đường ta
- Ngày lễ, giỗ,nhộm răng,tết nguyên đán,..
- 43. Why are there never any epsilon prod
- Ngày lễ, giỗ,nhộm răng,tết nguyên đán,..
- 1. (Advantages)Traveling by bus has bot
- be on time
- - That little
- 1. (Advantages)Traveling by bus has bot
- Tell them to lower their weapons!
- 3.3.1 thefourier and fick laws
- do you eaten ?
- longtemps planifiee par l'etat
- prepare for
- Lower that sword right now.
- tandis que l'eglise chretienne rassemble
