Ask HN: Should I add director on my resume
18 comments
Sometimes job titles mean something. M.D. and quarterback, for example. The title connotes specific skills and experience.
Some titles only mean something in a specific context, like SW3 And GS-4. Those refers to an org chart slot or pay grade in an organization but carry little meaning otherwise.
And then some titles mean nothing, like Senior Wizard or Director. Anyone can call themselves a Director of their own company. By itself it means nothing.
A resume should communicate accomplishments, demonstrable skills, and experience. It should not advertise meaningless or pompous titles.
Some titles only mean something in a specific context, like SW3 And GS-4. Those refers to an org chart slot or pay grade in an organization but carry little meaning otherwise.
And then some titles mean nothing, like Senior Wizard or Director. Anyone can call themselves a Director of their own company. By itself it means nothing.
A resume should communicate accomplishments, demonstrable skills, and experience. It should not advertise meaningless or pompous titles.
Totally. I don't want to be perceived as pompous but fuck it, I'm skilled too. lol. So I'll leave it in there and include my accomplishments.
No one reading a resume focuses on titles because they are seldom meaningful by themselves. What you have to do is back the title up with accomplishments. Someone called a Director should have some number of direct and indirect reports, business units they're in charge of, metrics their performance is measured against, and specific accomplishments. So you describe what you did as a Director and those accomplishments and responsibilities should line up with with the title.
If you were Director-level at a recognized company that's one thing. A Director at Apple or Microsoft will send a different message than a Director at some three-person operation that lasted for a year and no one ever heard of.
There's a glut of very small companies started by friends who all call themselves Director and CEO and Founder and so on. With no responsibilities or accomplishments the titles are just a joke, and rightly perceived as such.
If you were Director-level at a recognized company that's one thing. A Director at Apple or Microsoft will send a different message than a Director at some three-person operation that lasted for a year and no one ever heard of.
There's a glut of very small companies started by friends who all call themselves Director and CEO and Founder and so on. With no responsibilities or accomplishments the titles are just a joke, and rightly perceived as such.
If it's the truth and you can prove it, put it on there.
The people who will decide you are a liar and toss your resume in the trash can without so much as making a phone call to check your story probably aren't people you really want to work for.
The people who will decide you are a liar and toss your resume in the trash can without so much as making a phone call to check your story probably aren't people you really want to work for.
That's not how hiring works. First you have to get past automated screening, which looks for keywords. Then someone scans a stack of resumes looking for things like experience and a credible overall story. Then maybe you get called for an interview. Reference checks happen after interviewing -- no one has time to confirm details of every resume they get.
The purpose of a resume is to get an interview. That's it. It's not intended to tell all about yourself, or to present a test for the potential employer to pass to prove they are worthy of you. You have 15 seconds or less to make an impression with a resume, so every word has to count, and you can't expect some deep analysis, phone calls, etc. at the first stages.
At most companies the person tasked with turning a big stack of resumes into a short list of candidates to interview is not the person who makes the hiring decision, so you have to get on that short list first.
Anyone can "prove" they had the title Director, that's not the question. What's hard to prove is that the title meant anything or just signals vanity or a two-person company. A Director at Microsoft is a very different job than a Director at Jack at Jane's Design Agency.
The purpose of a resume is to get an interview. That's it. It's not intended to tell all about yourself, or to present a test for the potential employer to pass to prove they are worthy of you. You have 15 seconds or less to make an impression with a resume, so every word has to count, and you can't expect some deep analysis, phone calls, etc. at the first stages.
At most companies the person tasked with turning a big stack of resumes into a short list of candidates to interview is not the person who makes the hiring decision, so you have to get on that short list first.
Anyone can "prove" they had the title Director, that's not the question. What's hard to prove is that the title meant anything or just signals vanity or a two-person company. A Director at Microsoft is a very different job than a Director at Jack at Jane's Design Agency.
Director at Microsoft is a very different job than a Director at Jack at Jane's Design Agency.
I imagine the hiring process would also vary substantially between the two.
I know something about giftedness, something more than I know about theoretically standard hiring processes. One of the things gifted people run into is people routinely thinking they are making stuff up or exaggerating.
Over the years, I've learned to just be me. If people have a problem with that -- with who I actually am -- it's not going to be solved by finding polite euphemisms and telling little white lies and dressing down my accomplishments and trying to pretend I'm less than I am. All that does is give them a new excuse to claim I'm a liar because now I've "changed my story."
YMMV and probably will.
I tossed out my 2 cents on the theory that someone being called Director in their twenties is someone with problems like mine. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about that.
I imagine the hiring process would also vary substantially between the two.
I know something about giftedness, something more than I know about theoretically standard hiring processes. One of the things gifted people run into is people routinely thinking they are making stuff up or exaggerating.
Over the years, I've learned to just be me. If people have a problem with that -- with who I actually am -- it's not going to be solved by finding polite euphemisms and telling little white lies and dressing down my accomplishments and trying to pretend I'm less than I am. All that does is give them a new excuse to claim I'm a liar because now I've "changed my story."
YMMV and probably will.
I tossed out my 2 cents on the theory that someone being called Director in their twenties is someone with problems like mine. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about that.
It’s not a question of age. The original question asked how it looks on a resume to have a director title followed by a “lowly SW3” title. A resume is not a person, it’s a summary of skills and accomplishments intended to get an interview.
The OP asked this question here, and referred to their current job as lowly. The OP also brought up doubt about age, perceptions, and pretension. All of that does not communicate confidence, much less “giftedness.” The question was about how those job titles might be perceived.
A person with demonstrable skills and a record of accomplishment would not have such doubts, and would not worry about how titles get perceived. A resume is for getting interviewed, not to prove something to yourself.
The OP asked this question here, and referred to their current job as lowly. The OP also brought up doubt about age, perceptions, and pretension. All of that does not communicate confidence, much less “giftedness.” The question was about how those job titles might be perceived.
A person with demonstrable skills and a record of accomplishment would not have such doubts, and would not worry about how titles get perceived. A resume is for getting interviewed, not to prove something to yourself.
People know that you didn't likely give that title to yourself. Some companies inflate their titles for various reasons (e.g. recruiting, marketing, ...). You could always qualify your experience by explaining what you accomplished. How many people and in what roles did you manage? What projects did you deliver? How much money did you make or at least how much went through your business unit? Hard facts cannot be seen as lies or puffery.
If you're sending out resumes you're already going about it wrong. Ideally companies are recruiting you, and you have friends and colleagues who will refer you to jobs. Most jobs are not advertised, and companies will find a slot for a person that can add value where they need it. Sending out resumes and worrying about how a title is perceived is getting off on the wrong foot -- you're splashing around in the crowded shallow end of the pool with everyone else.
Do you think Directors with a list of accomplishments and measurable responsibilities send out resumes to get a new job?
Do you think Directors with a list of accomplishments and measurable responsibilities send out resumes to get a new job?
Just write engineering management and highlight it was a manager role. Most hiring managers and recruiters are aware that titles are often meaningless.
In what way were you a director? Did you manage people? How many? Who did you report to? How many managers reported to you?
Having management experience on your resume is a good thing, assuming you are open to managing again.
But is it taken seriously? Do people not believe it because of my age?
I’m Danish and I work in the public sector, so factor that into my anecdotal experience. We would take it serious, some people get into high positions quickly. We would ask you about it out of interest and we would also ask you about why you stepped down/took a lower position, but I don’t think anyone would go into an interview not believing you.
That’s not my experience at least. Sometimes you’ll get a candidate where it turns out that they aren’t as good at something as they made it sound, but I can’t recall a single time someone ever doubted a candidate before the person made us have a reason to doubt them.
That’s not my experience at least. Sometimes you’ll get a candidate where it turns out that they aren’t as good at something as they made it sound, but I can’t recall a single time someone ever doubted a candidate before the person made us have a reason to doubt them.
I was a director around that age and didn't notice anyone questioning it. I do tend to look older than I am, so that may have helped. Maybe start using "A Touch of Grey" in your hair :D
In all seriousness, no business owner wakes up thinking they want to hire another expensive middle manager. Filling a director role means that a business decided to pay a significant salary for management of something important to the business. That means something on a resume, and is totally worth keeping there to showcase your skills.
In all seriousness, no business owner wakes up thinking they want to hire another expensive middle manager. Filling a director role means that a business decided to pay a significant salary for management of something important to the business. That means something on a resume, and is totally worth keeping there to showcase your skills.
If they have doubts, they'll ask you about it and you'll have the opportunity to clarify what the role entailed (which should be clearly conveyed in your resume anyways). Companies use titles differently so all they're trying to do is match up what you actually did to the corresponding level in their own org.
> But is it taken seriously?
As long as you had substantive experience and can show it, then yes. If it was a title only, then probably not.
As long as you had substantive experience and can show it, then yes. If it was a title only, then probably not.
Never sell yourself short. Others will be more than happy to do that for you.
I am about to become 29 years old..and I feel like people think it's a joke that I was a director of SWE a year ago when I'm a lowly SW3 now.
Should I still put it on my resume? I feel like people tend to toss it out because it looks either pretentious or like a lie.