Join Mensa and put on resume somewhere?

[I D Shukhov]

I think this has been discussed, but I can't remember what the advice is.  I saw on an IT resume, which I thought was good, that the author had worked in the fact that he was a member of Mensa.  I then went to the Mensa site and saw that I qualify based on an old GRE score from the 1980's.  Is it worthwhile to pay them the $40 evaluation + $80 membership to join and then put it on my resume?

As a humorous aside, I'm almost thinking that I don't want to join if they would have me.  My scores weren't all *that* great, not as good probably as many other people's scores on this board.  I'm thinking maybe they've lowered their standards to boost membership

OTOH, I've allowed myself to become deskilled because of doing way too much maintenance work and I need all the help I can get -- if it would, in fact, help and not hurt me.

[The Gorn]

The basic reason: too much baggage. Too much appearance of preening.

I mean, it's OK to join, I guess. I went to one local meeting, back in the 70s when I was in college. I easily qualified. I was bored off of my @ss. I never ran into a more self congratulatory bunch. It was quite tedious.

What I mean is, I wouldn't use MENSA on my resume in a million years. It has too much baggage.

I know one guy who used Mensa on his signature line on email postings. He was not someone I wanted to socialize with, quite the opposite. Too much of the "I'm spayshul" crap.

I think it would hurt to use as a "qualification" or listed affiliation. Brains falls into the "show me, don't tell me about it" category.

[TRexx]

Join? No reason not to.  Add to resume? NO.

I work with a guy who is very active in his local (Chicago) Mensa chapter.  When he took this gig in NJ, he hooked up with a chapter here and they helped him find nice place to live. He also has a built in social network so he's got plenty to do on the weekends.  I asked him if he includes it on his resume, and he said "absolutely not".  He says if the people reading his resume are in Mensa, he's already made contact with them through the group. And to most non-members it's a turnoff.

BTW AFAIK I have worked with 2 Mensa members in my career. The guy I work with now is outstanding. The other was a total a$$hole.

[I D Shukhov]

This sounds right.  I usually don't see it on resumes, and I agree, the resume should stand on its own without preening adornments.

I always write chronological resumes, but my experiences for the past 10 years look all the same, and I'm asking myself:  "What do I have to offer?  What's my value proposition?"  

Most IT resumes I've seen list a bunch of projects and itemized hardware and software competencies or exposures (nobody can be sure which).  I think the resume writer generally wants to convey a competency thread that connects all these experiences and the reader is supposed to make this connection without being told.

This might not be a problem for someone with a resume where the writer's fitness is self-evident, but my image is looking rather commodity-like and I know I'm going to have trouble in this market. The things that I've done successfully have to come from some higher-level competence and this is what I'm going to try to make explicit -- thus, the functional approach.

[Richardk]

At some point I think a functional resume makes more sense but my experience with it has been largely negative. It seems that many don't know what to make of a functional resume since they expect a chronological one.

They want dates, where you gained your experience and what you did at each job. It almost comes off like you're hiding something, which you may be since it's also suggested to hide your age, your (over) qualifications, job hopping, long periods of unemployment or getting back into something you're not current with.

So you're screwed either way. They don't like it and wonder what you're hiding.

The problem is it's hard to give a complete picture with a chronological one when your career is long with many diverse jobs, like say consulting. My full chrono resume is very long; does someone really want to read that? The problem is that each job gives the highlights to keep it short plus there's a lot of repetition. I would think that a functional resume would be welcomed by HR but I've seen the opposite.

The problem is they rarely hire 'the person' but a list of buzz words and requirements that can be matched up against a chronological resume. Using a functional resume means that they have to actually read it instead of scanning through it. Some people are so lazy or maybe they don't know how to read, that it amazes me.

On more than one occasion I've been asked where else I've used tool X. I tell them if they look down one job to the previous one, they'll see that it was also used there. And since they have a copy of my resume as a Word document, have they ever considered using the 'Find' command? They want chronological but can't read it. Maybe I should produce an audio version of my resume?

In short, with the right audience I think a functional resume is great but don't ditch the chronological one since that might be the next one they ask for.

[I D Shukhov]

I agree, I think chronological resumes are the standard thing wanted.  Really good ones would tell a story of increasing capability in the area of the job being applied for.

In "Parachute"  Bolles likes to call a resume a "Statement of capabilities"  to be used after doing the research to uncover the target job.  It makes sense that if you broadcast a resume with a list of experiences, it winds up with hundreds of other similar resumes, and more than likely some other resume will be slightly better -- thus no interview.

So maybe if one applies for jobs, somewhat blindly, chronological makes sense, but if you make contact in other ways you can use a functional resume.

Edit:  And then there's the "combo" version where half the resume is an expanded objective/capabilities statement with a chronological experience listing afterwards, much like the educational list.  I'm starting to think the "hardward/software used" part is really stupid -- but then again the whole IT hiring game is stupid.

[Richardk]

I've considered a combo resume since it would expand on "Me" while limiting the list of jobs to the last 5 - 10 years, with "more available" or some such line. Again it's the audience thing.

I agree that the "hardware/software used" is somewhat stupid but that's what they want. For an overview it makes sense but when others started listed things like Excel, Word, Power Point, it got really stupid. I thought that was assumed or of limited value but suddenly I was being questioned (many years back) if I ever used Word even though I worked in MS shops for the last 15 years. So I added a bunch more to my 'skills matrix'.

I recall one broker that took the 'skills matrix' to an extreme. He provided a second document to clients that listed every tool or soft skill that you ever touched, along with years of experience and last used. His document went on for pages.

Final thought, who's reading your resume? Is it someone with years of experience, that understands the company's needs and the kinds of people it hires or is it some kid out of college with some HR degree?

I had my resume reviewed by a college aged career counselor and while she had some good thoughts, she also wanted me to restructure my resume like I was a 20 something. For instance my education is at the bottom instead of the top. I told her that was so long ago that who really cares? If that's my best selling feature then I'm in trouble.

[I D Shukhov]

I recall one broker that took the 'skills matrix' to an extreme. He provided a second document to clients that listed every tool or soft skill that   you ever touched, along with years of experience and last used. His document went on for pages.

The company I work for insists that all employees keep a skills matrix like what you describe up to date.  There's a whole HR/ Industrial Psychology field that has something to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competence_%28human_resources%29#Competency_model

I don't pay too much attention to it, but I think behind the scenes something is going on related to using the competency matrix for staffing new projects.

[Aussie]

....would be thought of as 'bunging it on'.

I'm not sure of an equivalent US expression, but it more or less means distasteful and/or unwarranted boasting.

[TRexx]

The company I work for insists that all employees keep a skills matrix like what you describe up to date.

I've worked at a number of places that maintain detailed skills matrices of all their salaried employees in case they have to reassign them when the hourly folks go on strike.

[Richardk]

On the one hand that's great but on the other it's a bunch of blah, blah, blah.

If you can cherry pick the best people for a job then it's great but what happens when you have to work with what you got? The matrix or any psychology behind such a tool won't help you when you have the "wrong people" or should I say the non-ideal people?

Still when you have the ability to choose, it's a great idea to know what everyone can do.
Thinking out loud, this means that you can be over-qualified for your job but your company wants to know, just in case. How different this is from a recent thread where over-qualified people were disqualified for a position.

You need to come in just right and then they'll fill you up and mold you.

[Aussie]

When I worked as a QC in a Printing Ink manufacturor lab, when the factory hands went out, the lab technicians had to run the factory.  The factory, as well as making regular inks, also made newsprint ink, in big bulk lots.  New people got a 'baptism', as it were, by the experienced people not bleeding off the residual air pressure in the transfer hose or whatever before getting them to unhitch it.  Result?  Phwoosh!  Instant impersonation of an oil-rig worker.

[I D Shukhov]

Seems like the consensus here too.