Five main errors in the summary of CIO

Despite numerous publications and councils, Chief information officers continue to enter various errors to the summaries: from a lack of specialization to excesses of different information. The CIO.com edition involved in a research of the expert who pointed to a number of the main shortcomings of the curriculum vitae of IT heads.

In them the set of repetitive errors is found. IT professional turned on the experience which is not corresponding to a profile in the summary were not able to explain business benefit from results of the work and also the data which do not have relations to case.

Howard Seidel, the consultant and the partner of the consulting company in Essex Partners employment, selected five most often found mistakes which are made by heads of services of information technologies in the summaries.

1. The summary there is not enough identity. The summary is the means of communication between people. Therefore, still before IT heads will think of writing of the summary, they should think over their personal brand, i.e. a unique combination of skills, experience and a personnel which distinguish them from all other IT leading in labor market.

Each element of the curriculum vitae of the Chief information officer, from a common part before specific experience and achievements, should support the created personal brand. Thus recruiters and potential employers receive a picture of uniqueness and importance of Chief information officers.

Zaydel considers that the summary purpose first of all in that, "that people could define what you the leader, based on achievements and experience which is available for you".

But when it comes to creation of such brand, IT heads make two widespread mistakes: they or try to represent themselves as Jack of all trades to be addressed at once to many jobs and employers, or try to represent themselves as suitable for all companies which need CIO (today it is the innovators or leaders of transformation concentrated on business development).

Problem at such approach, according to Zaydel, is that it is difficult for recruiters to define strengths of the applicant. When Chief information officers try to provide themselves not to those who are they is actually, employment managers see it: often experience of the Chief information officer does not correspond to a brand by means of which they try to communicate.

2. The summary there is not enough common part. Zaydel considers that the summary where experience of the Chief information officer, his professional lines which distinguish it from all others in the market is emphasized is crucial. The good common part of the summary is clear, short and powerful. It is important because it is the first point of the summary which is read by recruiters and HR managers. If the common part of the summary awakens the interest of the recruiter, it will continue reading.

According to Zaydel, the common part is key and therefore that shows to the recruiter and the employer type of the head which the Chief information officer and types of positions or the organizations which in the best way correspond to this CIO taking into account its experience and preparation is.

3. The summary does not correspond to functionality of the Chief information officer. At selection of the summary, recruiters and employers try to categorize candidates. For IT professional such categories can include Chief information officers of infrastructures, the reforming CIO, CIO in health care, Chief information officers of a stratap, Chief information officers from the list of Fortune companies 500.

The working life of the Chief information officer, in combination with a common part, should correspond to functionality of the Chief information officer, i.e. type of a role which CIO will approach best of all. Ideally, the description the Chief information officer of experience and achievements will show what CIO type he is. For example, the IT heads who made extraordinary career, passing from a role in IT management to consulting, created the own company, it is more difficult for categorization by recruiters and employers. For them cunning in informing of own universality and an opportunity to fit into different roles recruiters.

4. The summary there are not enough specific achievements. Howard Seidel|Howard]] advises, specifying experience, to include from three to five specific business challenges which were implemented, having noted in addition fundamental obligations in each role. "Make sure that they are really exigeant, - he says. - If you give yourself as the head of conversions, you should show inherited by you, how the organization by means of your achievements was transformed".

5. The summary visually suppresses. Some IT heads consider irresistible - to supply the summaries with a large number of professional data, projects and duties to show to recruiters and employers the most complete understanding of the opportunities and experience. Such approach often creates hard to read summaries.

If the recruiter quickly browses the summary and is overloaded with lists, adjectives or paragraphs of the text, he does not learn what information is most important, and will quickly pass to the following summary, Zaydel emphasized. "A time the quantity expels quality, - he added. – Actually, in the text empty intervals are important".