Principles of a good CV (redux)

Greg Wyatt • September 18, 2024

I have a bit of a lurgy this week, and have little headspace for writing.

So I hope you’ll forgive this reminder article, especially if you’ve only recently subscribed:

“*If all you need is a CV template - have a look at this one from Lee Harding. Were I to receive one in this format, that would tick the boxes.*

“Ask 9 people for advice on your CV and you’ll end up with 10 CVs.”

A pithy truth that shows how subjective a CV is.

While also highlighting how frustrating it can be to spend time or even money on perfecting a document that the next person rips to shreds.

But in this comes an important truth.

That the only person whose opinion matters in a hiring process is the reader whose finger is on the Reject button.

Stay to the end for my thoughts on customising your CV.

In today’s Jobseeker Basics we’ll look at the principles of an effective CV.

Not a perfect CV, because perfection is wholly subjective and the path of madness in a difficult job search.

These principles are based on advice I give to jobseekers when they ask for feedback.

Principles that come from my own insight, backed up by effective processes from a seemingly different industry.

First we start with what a CV is and what a CV means.

Did you know the first recognised CV was written by Leonardo DaVinci in a letter highlighting his candidacy for employment? Yes a CV and cover letter in one!

I’m pleased to say he got the job off his first application.

However, the notion of a document that presents candidacy dates back millennia with gladiators highlighting their achievements through the Lanista system. This was done to increase their reputation so that owners could earn more money.

A form of marketing document based on provable facts that synthesised their gladiatorial career in written format - a stone slab.

In a sense nothing has changed - your CV is a marketing document, which you use to highlight your candidacy so that your buyers (employers - as they are on a buyer’s journey) invest in their time to offer you an interview.

Now, I do read a lot of debate on what a CV actually is, and whether it is more of a technical document than a marketing one.

However, that’s a disservice to true marketing, which always has a basis in fact.

Your CV is there to highlight your candidacy, and to give your experience meaning to the reader so that they can make a positive decision on you.

It’s there to get you an interview, and for its readers to take you to the next stage.

Typically a hiring process has several moving parts, each a decision-maker in their own right.

From an administrator who sifts CVs, to recruiters/talent acquisition processes that make a longlist, to hiring managers and their bosses - each has their say on whether or not you might make the cut.

I’m sorry to say sometimes it is arbitrary:

“If they’re this unlucky why would we hire them?” said the hiring manager to the administrator after binning one of the two piles of CVs at random.

While their decisions aren’t in your control, your words and how they are presented are.

So it makes sense to create a document that helps the weakest link in the chain see you as a candidate of choice, while also supporting other decision-makers, presuming they run the game fairly.

To summarise the above - your CV is a marketing document whose priority is the reader.

Because it’s a marketing document, it’s one you can use to market yourself outside of applying for a job. Such as through networking or doorknocking.

Its functionality outside of applying for a job is why it should be a document for life. It’s so multi-faceted, that you can use it in many arenas; more so than a LinkedIn profile, video or other, which have more specific purpose.

This means that the principles of a good CV are the principles of a good marketing document.

A good marketing document at its core creates action - the decision to move forward.

It goes to follow, the principles of a good marketing document also apply the principles of a good advert.

The same things we see, listen to and experience encourage us to take action to buy (let’s not forget that the employer is the buyer when it comes to the process that leads to an offer, although you too are a buyer in your decision to proceed).

I’m sure you have read much hoo-ha on what makes a good CV in the Talent Acquisition, recruitment, career coaching, and job seeker spaces, much of it is contradictory (mainly in line with that quote at the top), while some of it is cynical.

Instead of joining in that conversation, let’s look to another industry that uses words to convert action, as a basis for the principles of a good CV.

Whose principles are based on understanding how its users work, and influence their actions to improve the odds of a purchase.

E-commerce.

A multi-trillion industry built on the words you read, marketing and advertising.

While it may not directly relate to recruitment or looking for work, its principles do:

Readability
Accessibility
AIDA (attention interest desire action; a century-old advertising formula that applies response-stimuli psychology)
Features (what it does; skills, tools, experience in a CV) and benefits (how it helps; achievements)
SEO (keywords to be found) on the Google principles of Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness
Conversion rate optimisation (CRO; arguments to convert)

Job boards and LinkedIn employ many principles of E-commerce in their functionality, so it’s not as far removed as you might think.

Those are the principles. What about assumptions and myths?

ATS compliance
7-second CV scan
CVs must be 1/2/3/367 pages long
Anything people often talk about

These seem big deals, but they’re not, for a simple reason.

If you write your CV for a reader, in a way that grabs their attention, while following basic rules, you’ll get past these seeming traps.

Let’s touch on the top three briefly.

To be ATS compliant, at worst, you need to avoid tables, columns and images. I say at worst because modern ATSs don’t struggle with these so much. You can read this article for more on the ATS monster, and why it isn’t as relevant as you fear.
It’s true that in a volume process, the initial scan may be quick, but if you pass the scan your CV will be read in more depth because you move from elimination to selection. We’ll look more at this next with AIDA.
Your CV should be… okay this gets its own section:

Everyone has their own opinion on what the length of a CV should be.

The only person who matters in a hiring process is the reader, if they have a strong opinion you can find out.

If you can find out their specific requirement is for what makes a good CV, and you are prepared to play to their whim - give them that.

If not, your CV should tell its story in a way that grabs attention and holds it. Accessibility, readability… those bullet points above.

White space is your friend.
Tautology (unnecessary repetition) is not.
Conciseness is your friend.
Ambiguity is not.
Achievements that show context are your friend.
Adjectives are not (strip an adjective out and does your CV lose meaning? If not why are you relying on them?)
So What? is your friend. If you can’t answer that of your statements, your statements need improving.
Show specific and relevant information and don’t bore your audience with things they don’t care about.

Grab your reader’s attention in the first half page, so that they read the rest. If they don’t read past that first half page, it doesn’t really matter how well written the rest of your document is.

Get these points right, and a good enough CV will likely be 800 to 1200 words long across 2 to 3 (even 4) pages.

Okay now on to actionable steps.

Accessibility and readability

Can someone who doesn’t know your domain see what you do from your CV?

If they can’t there’s a problem, especially if they are the weakest link in the chain.

A good litmus test is to ask a friend you trust to see what they can tell you about you from your CV. What do they think your biggest achievements are?

White space is your friend - would you read a condensed document or one that is clearly laid out? Don’t worry about spreading your CV onto a third, or even fourth page, if your experience demands it.

AIDA

The classic advertising framework, and how animals, in general, make decisions (look, check, am I hungry/scared/aroused, act). Look to your puppy for confirmation.

In a 7-second CV scan, you grab Attention on the first page, with the most relevant information: your job title, key skills and tools that show how you meet essential requirements, and generally what the vacancy is looking for.

Get past this first test and gain their Interest through a clearly laid out document that shows the passage of your career (reverse chronological order, show company and role context).

Build Desire by showing your specific achievements that support your candidacy for the role you want. These are the problems you solve and show how you can help your next employer best.

Enable Action by providing clear and accurate means of contacting you - this may seem obvious yet some forget to do so.

- - -

A note on Context .

Context is the gaps in your CV that answer the questions your readers should have.

What does your employer do? How many employees? What size revenue? What was the structure of the team in which you delivered your achievement?

If your reader has to ask a question about your CV, your CV should provide the answer.

Context is what most CVs miss, and it lets them down.

One way to show context, is to use the interview framework STAR (Situation Task Action Result) - this frames information in a way that has meaning to your audience.

- - -

Features and Benefits

These are the basics of selling.

You don’t buy the technical specifications of a TV; you buy what the TV does for you.

You don’t buy the ingredients of a Pizza, you buy the taste, sensation and experience it provides.

Both are important of course.

But most of your readers know broadly what a <job title> does - there’s no need to say it if the meaning is implicit.

What we want to know is how it helps.

For example.

An administrator may do administration, but how does it help?

Do they arrange travel cost efficiently, take away the admin burden from the directors, save time?

Those are the benefits, even better in the form of achievements.

SEO primarily relates to keywords. Think about how you search on Google for whatever it is you search on. We do much the same when scanning and searching on CVs.

Are the keywords from the job description or advert you are applying to clearly stated on your CV?

These are typically the essential requirements and this is a rare piece of ALWAYS advice. Always show how you meet the essential requirements.

But also rely on EEAT in that list above. Show these keywords, but not in a way that makes you look cynical or careless.

Some career coaches advise a ‘white text keyword bomb’ as a hack - but if a reader thinks you’ve employed a hack, you may be seen to be cheating, and that rarely goes well.

If your CV has the right keywords, it will be easier to find on CV Databases.

You can use the same keywords to make it easier to be found on LinkedIn.

Which are two ways to access ‘ hidden jobs ’.

Ultimately, the only point of a CV is to prompt action, the second A in AIDA.

The crux of a CV is to show the reader how you can solve their problems.

The problems that are at the heart of their vacancy.

Do this in a compelling way, and you’ll improve your odds.

CRO is built on psychology through and through and understanding how your readers make decisions.

Here’s an example that shows how readability and psychology come together:

«image description: the mysteries of reader psychology… for most people»

Think about the flow and readability of your CV - this is how websites work.

Everything in a well-designed website is intentional. Is your CV?

I find CRO fascinating - worth a read if you want to go down a rabbit hole.

A note on customising your CV.

It’s common advice that you should customise your CV.

But here’s a nuance.

If you accept there is no such thing as an objectively perfect CV, then ‘good enough’ should be your goal.

A CV that presents your candidacy to the principles above is good enough, especially if it represents the best version of you for the role you are most suited for.

This ‘good enough’ CV should be the basis of applications.

When tailoring your CV to show how you meet essential requirements, this shouldn’t take more than a few minutes - it’s a basic task.

If you’re spending hours tailoring CVs for every application, this is time that should be better spent elsewhere.

Of course, there will be occasions when you have to customise to a specific set of demands, in which case it’s your choice whether you invest the time to do so intentionally.

If you present a good enough CV with minor adjustments, instead of a heavily customised document, the difference in outcome is negligible in most situations.

Use the time you save in not overly tailoring to better effect. It’s a good way not to burn out.

CVs are important, but many people place too much importance on their place in the process.

A good enough CV is your best step forward. If you are a no anyway, perhaps it wasn’t meant to be.

Or maybe the decision was already made if you are in a demographic the reader chooses to discriminate against.

That may not even be for illegal reasons, if they decide you live too far away, are too expensive, or that you love Agile when they love Waterfall.

Go for good enough - it’s a challenge to get there, but once you do, you can build on it for life, and it might just help you get a job now too.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg”

< Older Post

Newer Post >

De Facto Automated Rejection & You

By Greg Wyatt • November 12, 2026

While 2027 remains surprisingly far away, with plenty of time to start applications, attend interviews, gain an acceptable job offer and even start work, I'm already thinking about the biannual update to A Career Breakdown Kit. Only, nothing's really changed in terms of what might affect the steps you take, overall, since the last update, so any changes are likely to only be minor. This might surprise you, if you feel that AI has increasingly eaten into how applications are administered and assessed. While the changes that are actually happening make the treatise of this article more important, which is to look at how recruitment actually happens in informing your strategy. Changes that may not be widespread but are emerging - deprioritising advertising roles in favor of sourcing (looking for candidates), because of the volume of applications; adding extra friction into applications, penalising relevant candidates because of AI applications made automatically; even discounting applications wholesale if they come from they are sent by a mass-apply service. I do see people regularly showcasing features of various ATSs over the years that seem to show automated rejections, yet these features rarely worked well, and haven't changed much in two decades. As I mentioned to Martyn, at a recent Recruitment Technology standards launch in the UK, "it doesn't matter how good the technology layer is, if the human layer is the problem". Martyn Redstone is Head of Responsible AI at Warden, and I'm fortunate that he will be joining me and Simon Ward on a LinkedIn Live as we discuss what this topic means for job seekers. I'll update this newsletter with the event when it's live. In the meanwhile, Martyn is well worth following to understand what's actually happening with AI in recruitment. It's still important to acknowledge the poor experiences job seekers have, and to try and shed light on what is happening, in what I call: 6 - De Facto Automated Rejection and You When there’s any discussion over Beat the Bots, job seekers often assume they are unfairly treated, while people from the recruitment profession deny it happens at all - “that’s not how the ATS works”, “we don’t use AI that way”, and so on. The best objection I see to the common recruiter stance is, “What does it matter how we are rejected, if we were never fairly considered?” That question is the heart of this chapter and, to answer it, I need to propose a new term: De facto automated rejection. Definition: where an element of a recruitment process leads to an application being either rejected or not considered, irrespective of capability, contribution, or potential alignment. That may sound an awful lot like Automated Rejection, yet it isn’t the same thing. Examples: No application after number 100 considered Illegal discrimination Legal discrimination - location, salary, industry, qualification, etc - legally permissible decisions driven by assumption Relying on configured ranking within an ATS to prioritise applications Not considering candidates who aren't picked up by a Boolean search (sourcing) Filter questions at advert stage (e.g. do you have a work permit?) Applying after the vacancy is at interview stage And many more All de facto automated rejections have one thing in common, and it isn’t automation - it’s human decision-making, including shortcuts and assumptions. Some of those examples above are cited when talking about auto-rejects. However, these are all consequences of human intervention and the choice not to intervene. There are an increasing number of AI products that automate these steps, with the requirement of human oversight - I've yet to speak to a recruiter that wholly relies on them, and few who don't view every application. This is one reason why ATS Compliance and Beat the Bots are a red herring. The advice fails not because it’s wrong, but because it optimises the wrong layer. The system is only a component in the process, governed by humans. If you misdiagnose de facto automated rejection as a technical problem, you’ll keep trying to outsmart systems instead of changing how you’re seen, found, and prioritised by people. Understanding how recruiters handle their process and giving them what they need in an application has to take priority. While the same steps that “optimise human compliance” are implicitly system-compliant. The challenge is that human compliance relies on what makes us individual: our skill level, our insight, our psychology, our biases, our resources and the time available to us. As well as how you navigate these. Without forgetting that we are people like you, often trying to do too much with too little. It’s no wonder our frustrations mirror yours, with the difference that we earn a salary for our experiences. ATS Compliance feels more comfortable, because it gives a clear direction, even if it’s the wrong one. It is true we use filters and keywords to prioritise how our applications are presented to us. We do the same when we look for candidates, whether on LinkedIn, job boards, our ATS or other means. All this does is present results in a way that allows us to spend more attention on those that meet the criteria we have set. When we review those results, the way that information is presented informs whether we progress them or not. To be human compliant, your application has to be discoverable, then it has to convert interest. Fail on either front and you’ll either be rejected or you won’t hear at all. If humans are the reasons you are rejected for reasons unrelated to capability or contribution... well, I think that’s rather more problematic than technology. Beat the Bots and ATS Compliance aren’t just a red herring - they can actively hold you back. Because they place the wrong priority by presenting a strategy, rather than simple hygiene. Your wider strategy should encompass far more than applications - getting found, starting conversations, doorknocking, networking and all these other opportunities that can get you closer to a job: These are fundamentally covered in a human compliance strategy. I just happened to call it A Career Breakdown Kit instead, with how to do these in Parts 2 and 3. I realise this may create a feeling of overwhelm, when you realise there is much more to a better application than the transactional steps of ATS compliance. Yet these same steps will improve every aspect of your job search and some are straightforward to take - go to www.bwrecruitment.co.uk/resources for the free CV template that is an easy starting point.

Salary on the job description

By Greg Wyatt • November 11, 2026

I've written many variations on the article below, over the years, and it seems sensible to revisit given the UK government's announcements around salary transparency. On the whole, I'm for it, with the many advantages it brings. But like a lot of things in recruitment, there is a more involved discussion to be had, especially when this fix treats the symptoms, not the rot. That's not to say the fix isn't worth doing, just that it won't fix many of the problems underlying a lack of transparency. This article is a little dated, in terms of the research shared, but I think the points are as relevant as ever. Originally published May 2023 Salary on the Job Description? Yes, the headline is trolling. The question should be ‘salary on the job advert?’ You wouldn’t confuse a job description with an advert, would you? This is a subject rife with disagreement around ethics and practicality, and worth broaching again considering recent campaigns in the UK to increase salary transparency and ban the ‘what’s your current salary?’ question. Let’s focus on some practicalities first, based on UK research I ran last year for my “Accessing a Candidate Short Market” guide: Job boards can penalise you for not listing salary. As of December 2021, Totaljobs penalises adverts that don’t list salary, and these aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard. Unlisted salaries attract fewer qualified applications. This was estimated to be between 20% and 45% fewer, across the job boards I talked to. LinkedIn reported that not only can you expect more applications, you may also expect better-qualified applications when the salary is advertised. My work supporting senior job seekers confirms this - many would not apply to adverts that had no salary or "competitive salary" because they felt this was a waste of their time. There is less emphasis on salary negotiation from the candidate side, due to transparency in pay. This is a key part of equity, relating to gender, race and intersectional identity. According to Payscale 's research, white men are most likely to negotiate the highest salary. It’s simple – if you advertise vacancies and don’t list salary, you risk receiving fewer, less suitable applications. Then there’s the ethical question, where a common argument is that there is ‘no ethical reason that salaries can’t be listed’. Now, while I’m a proponent for advertising salaries, where possible, I think this ethical argument isn’t the right one - ‘can’t be’ is a strong statement. I think a better question is ‘how does this do harm’ when establishing reasons for not listing salary. This balances pragmatism with the most important aspect of ethics. It can be a complicated question too in scenarios like this: How do you establish salary transparency for job families across multiple regions where the local pay is established by HQ in one country? Currency exchange rates and cost of living mean that a fair salary one day may not be the next, therefore flexibility in not listing salary may be ethically the right thing to do if the intent is right. What about new vacancies that serve to solve a business problem and can be recruited at different levels? What about practical situations like recruiting hard-to-fill vacancies during a wider redundancy programme, whereby listing a salary would create concern in unrelated areas of that unsettled business? It's not always as simple a question as we’d like to think. If you’re facing a complex situation in advertising a role, I recommend describing your stance in the advert itself, if you legitimately can’t state the salary. At the same time, as we’ve seen in the US, legislation to enforce salary transparency creates situations such as Netflix apparently advertising a range of $90-900k. Who does that help? The problem with this kind of legislation is that companies can comply while continuing the behaviour that led to the legislation in the first place. It’s palliative, rather than treating unfairness at its root. We should also consider the unforeseen consequence of salary transparency, such as this research which appears to show a reduced link between performance and pay: Influence of Pay Transparency Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy. And there's more to understanding someone's existing remuneration than simply establishing whether they can afford to move. Sometimes these conversations reveal that someone is being underpaid. With evidence of what their experience and contribution might command elsewhere, they can go back to their current employer and make the case for a pay rise. That might mean they decide not to move at all. Which is a perfectly good outcome for them, even if it isn't for the vacancy in the short term. It also opens up the counteroffer conversation early. If their employer could resolve the reason they're considering leaving, I'd rather understand that before they accept an offer elsewhere. There's a benefit for prospective employers too. A new employer may budget £52,000 for a role, believing that to be market rate, based on historic data. But if conversations with suitably experienced candidates reveal that their existing remuneration, expectations and other opportunities consistently indicate otherwise, there's good reason to revise either the budget or the requirements. If that budget does prove unrealistic, and it's the same budget other team members are measured against, it can also create the argument to revisit everyone's salaries - subject to affordability, of course. After all, it's cheaper to retain fairly paid staff with all the knowledge they have than to replace them. Of course, conversations with candidates aren't a substitute for proper salary benchmarking. But they can reveal problems that wouldn't otherwise be apparent. There are also situations where understanding the whole package matters. What if someone currently receives a 16% pension contribution and moves to a role offering a 10% pay rise but only a 5% pension? Car allowances, RSUs, tax-efficient packages? Remuneration is a more involved conversation than simply salary. And none of this means someone's existing salary should determine what they're worth to their next employer. If their previous salary was unfair, using it to determine their next salary risks perpetuating that unfairness. And if an employer routinely offers a 15% increase on previous earnings, the new salary may have little relationship to the contribution that person can make. It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability, rather than what may be irrelevant history. So I understand the reasons for wanting to ban questions about previous salary. They're often used badly. But I think there's an important distinction between asking to establish someone's worth and asking to understand their circumstances. One can perpetuate unfairness. The other can help identify and correct it. If legislation restricts these conversations, I'll adapt how I offer this support. But I'd hope any restrictions recognise the difference between using salary history to determine an offer and voluntarily discussing remuneration to help someone make better decisions. I hope you’ve found these thoughts helpful to start a broader conversation in your business. My thoughts aren’t set in stone, so please let me know your opinions if you disagree. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services: Commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment Manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client Outplacement support Email me on greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk if you'd like to discuss.