LinkedIn a great tool but it can’t replace a well-written resume

WITH the rise of social media it is important to remember the ­traditional strengths of a well-written, tightly structured and accurate resume.

With the rise of social media it is important to remember the ­traditional strengths of a well-written, tightly structured and accurate resume.

I am a professional resume writer with a background in recruitment and generational change. LinkedIn and a resume are two very different tools with different marketing purposes. Here are some of their strengths and weaknesses.

Resumes are the first-strike weapon in landing a job. They must grab the recruiter or employer’s attention quickly. This requires persuasive and factual writing aimed at a specific position, rather than an incomplete and discursive narrative often found on LinkedIn sites.

Resumes are targeted and structured career biographies that drive home not only the candidate’s suitability for an interview, but satisfy a raft of other criteria.

A resume must show how innovations and initiatives were implemented, as well as qualitative career experience such as teamwork, management or leadership style. Few LinkedIn sites do this.

A good resume also demonstrates research. A candidate should understand the issues facing a business and show how their results-based skills and capabilities will help solve problems or boost performance.

A resume is formal in tone and language and includes detailed information about accomplishments and key responsibilities. It is also an outbound marketing tool aimed at specific audiences. Unlike LinkedIn, a resume can be edited into multiple versions serving different audiences or focuses.

LinkedIn has more than 3 million users in Australia and 300 million worldwide. It caters mostly to mid and later career professionals. It has become a virtual Rolodex for business people. I write LinkedIn sites for clients as a master biography and use considerably more of their experience than I would include in a resume.

A LinkedIn site is less formal and more flexible, able to accommodate a casual first-person voice. It is an inbound marketing tool aimed at getting employers and recruiters to find you — as long as the site is turned on. LinkedIn’s best feature offers job opportunities, networking potential and niche group conversations. A results-orientated LinkedIn profile is a joy to behold. It tells headhunters who you are and what you do.

Recruiters also look for passive clients. These potential candidates are not actively looking for a job. But fortunately, these individuals comprise most LinkedIn members. LinkedIn is superior to Facebook and Twitter because its content focuses exclusively on professional contacts, sharing, and communication.

I am still wary about recommendations and endorsements on LinkedIn as they can be a form of popularity contest. Only make authentic endorsements.

But many LinkedIn sites in Australia are inactive and, so far, it has proven to be more popular with professionals in their 40s and 50s than with young people. For LinkedIn to grow, it needs to target a younger demographic.

One of its prime weaknesses is that LinkedIn sites are not targeted. They float in cyberspace in the hope that recruiters will notice them. Many sites fail the most basic test of writing a comprehensive career summary and including key words. If you did that on a resume, it would hit the “don’t interview” pile immediately.

Over-writing and lacking a results focus bedevil resumes and LinkedIn. Far too many applicants include information going back 20 years and list every short course undertaken. With LinkedIn sites there is room to expand on selling points. With resumes, accuracy, brevity and clarity are crucial.

Malcolm King is the director of Republic Resumes