Keep quiet about the mandolin playing
Somewhere on my computer I have a curriculum vitae. I don't look at it very often. If it were the piece of paper it used to be, it would be creased and dusty by now, tucked away at the bottom of a drawer.
But because it's filed on my PC, it still looks as fresh as the day it was revised by a young colleague about four years ago: she was a graduate trainee who took one look at my CV and decided that it wasn't up to scratch.
She reversed the chronology so recent stuff appeared first and changed the contents from a sparse list of roles and dates to something that read like an adventure story.
The reality, as with most other careers, is something nearer to that described by Dr Seuss in Oh, the Places You'll Go! except that what Dr Seuss called those “bang-ups and hang-ups” interrupting the best made plans, are barely visible.
That's the whole point of the CV. It's the documentary equivalent of a smart suit and shiny shoes presenting your very best profile. But is it simply a sales document or should it attempt to give a rounded picture of the real you?
Apparently not, if you are a career-focused mother with a 16-month-old baby. Diane Winship, a former accountant, told an industrial tribunal last week that she had been advised by a jobcentre to remove mention of her baby girl from her CV.
Ms Winship, who is alleging unfair dismissal and sex discrimination in an ongoing case against her former employerssaid she was shocked by the advice she received from the jobcentre when she was seeking a new position.
In theory it shouldn't matter who you are when applying for a job. Selection should be based purely on your ability to do the work. In reality, few employers can resist the temptation to apply subjective judgments when reading a job application.
Jeff Grout, a recruitment specialist who looked at thousands of CVs during his early career as a professional recruiter, says: “We like to think that people will be willing to be flexible but we need to be aware that some might view having a young child in a negative way. Whether you want to work for such an employer is another question. The real question is whether the details you include on the CV are relevant.”
“A CV is an advertisement or marketing document. It is not a list of things you have done in your entire life,” he says.
“I can understand someone saying ‘Don't include your 16-month-old baby'. This detail doesn't need to be there. I have seen lots of proud dads listing the achievements of their children on their CVs but recruiters are not interested in this. Ultimately the CV is about the person whose name appears on the top of it.”
Most people, even the most senior of executives, he says, can be guilty of including irrelevancies on their CVs.
“Some people like to make an opening statement about themselves such as ‘dynamic, profits-driven senior executive'. Others put down their personal career objective. Recruiters are not looking for this but for evidence of where a candidate can add value,” says Mr Grout. “The most important information is about your most recent job.”
The presence of legislation against certain types of discrimination can lull us into the belief that such discrimination is disappearing. In reality, discriminatory judgments are exercised all the time in private conversations, often between clients and their agencies.
Just occasionally, we hear some forthright comment about such issues. Godfrey Bloom, MEP for the UK Independence Party, argued recently, that employing women of child-bearing age constituted a serious risk to the small-business owner. My point here is not to debate the rights or wrongs of Mr Bloom's views but to acknowledge that such views are not uncommon among small employers.
If we react against such views, it is because we belong to a society that is seeking to break down discriminatory barriers, particularly on the groundsof gender, race, disabilityand age.
Dianah Worman, diversity and equal opportunities specialist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, notes, however, that subtle discrimination is happening all the time in the recruitment market. “Decisions can be made on the basis of your postcode, which university you attended or any career gaps on your CV. Your prospects may depend to the extent an organisation is prepared to stretch its thinking about the kind of workforce it wants.”
Age discrimination still one of the most pernicious areas of prejudice in recruitment operates at both ends of a working life. At the start of your career you are likely to face concerns about your lack of experience. Yet this very same experience seems to count for very little when you reach a certain age and the company wants to lever you out.
The experience/qualification equation is never an easy balance. I found myself at a recent seminar arguing for the merits of experience against a much younger manager who held that experience counted for nothing. Ability backed by qualifications, he suggested, should be the sole criterion for selection. It was difficult to escape the conclusion that our judgments were being shaded by our respective ages.
Academic discrimination is another area we hear too little about. I rarely hear recruiters questioning the obsession in recruitment for graduates, yet surely this is a potentially unfair source of discrimination. The only reason we don't see it as such is that we have been conditioned to value a university education.
This is not to advocate laws against all kinds of discrimination. We need to acknowledge that the wider we extend the net of unfair discrimination, the more likely it is that everyone has something that could count against them.
The more recruiters are perceived to react to personal details on a CV, the more CVs are going to become clinical documents, outlining nothing more about a candidate than their employment achievements. Some may believe that is as it should be.
But people are not machines. They do have families and interests outside work. That should be a cause for celebration not fear. Women should not have to feel they are on their guard and they should not have to lie by omission to get a job.
At the same time we must remain aware that recruiters will exercise their choices, fair or otherwise, and we may question whether there is a stage at which employment protection can prove counter-productive. Mr Bloom's comment suggests that stage has been reached among some small employers when considering maternity rights.
在简历中刻画一个完美的你？
在我的电脑里存有一份简历，我不常看。如果它像以前的简历一样，只是一张普通的纸，也许现在已经又脏又皱，塞在抽屉的最里面了。
但这份简历是存在电脑里的，所以仍像四年前那样崭新。当时，一位年轻的同事把它修改了一下。她是毕业实习生，看了我的简历后就说，这份简历不合格。
她把简历中的时间顺序换了换，这样，最近的事就排在了最前面，同时，她还把一份干巴巴的时间工作简表，改写成一段探险故事般的经历。
就多数职业而言，现实更像苏斯博士(Dr Seuss)在《哦，你要去的地方》(Oh, the Places You’ll Go!)中所描绘的那样。只是，苏斯博士所说的那些打乱了绝佳计划的“意外与困厄”，在简历中难得一见。
这正是简历的关键所在。它的作用相当于一身精美的着装和一双锃亮的皮鞋，只不过是以字面形式呈现出最完美的你。但是，简历仅仅只是一份销售文件？还是应该展现真实的你？
如果你是一个注重事业的母亲，带着一个16个月大的婴儿，那么你的答案显然是否定的。黛安娜?温希普(Diane Winship)曾是一名会计师。上周，她告诉劳资审裁处，一家就业中心建议她在简历中不要提及自己的婴儿。
在这起案件中，温希普宣称，她的前任雇主对她的解雇是不公平的，并有性别歧视。她说，她在一家就业中心寻求一份新工作的时候，得到了这样的建议，她感到非常震惊。
理论上讲，找工作时，你的身份并不重要。筛选应以你的工作能力为准。但在现实生活中，雇主在审阅职位申请时，往往会不由自主地施加主观判断。
杰夫?格劳特(Jeff Grout)是一位招聘专家。作为一名职业招聘者，他曾看过成千上万份简历。他说：“我们一厢情愿地认为雇主愿意保持灵活心态，但我们需要意识到，有些雇主也许认为身边带着一个小孩并不是件好事。当然，你是否愿意为这样的雇主工作就是另外一个问题了。关键问题在于，你写进简历里面的细节，是否与应聘的这份工作有关。”
格劳特说：“简历是一则广告或一份推销性的文件。它并不是一份清单，要列出你所做过的每一件事。”
“我能够理解为什么有人说‘不要在简历中提及你有一个16个月大的婴儿’。这个细节没有必要写进简历。我曾看到过许多自豪的父亲在简历中罗列子女的成就，但招聘者对此并不感兴趣。归根结底，这份简历是关于那个名字出现在顶端姓名栏里的人。”
格劳特说，包括最高层主管在内的大多数人，都会犯下在简历里写进无关的内容的错误。
格劳特先生说：“有些人喜欢在简历的开头写上一句关于自己的概述，比如‘一位富有活力，追求效益的高级主管’，其他人会写下他们的职业目标。但招聘者想看的不是这些，他们要辨别的是，这位应聘者能在哪一方面为单位增添价值。最重要的信息，就是关于你最近做过的工作。”
反对某些歧视的法规的存在，会让我们误以为此等歧视正在渐渐消失。在现实生活中，歧视性的评判在私下的谈话中时有发生，尤其是在客户与其代理机构之间。
我们偶尔才会听到有关歧视的一些直率的评论。最近，英国独立党的欧洲议会议员戈弗雷?布卢姆(Godfrey Bloom)争辩说，对于小企业的雇主而言，雇佣育龄妇女会给企业带来很大的风险。在这里，我并不想就布卢姆先生观点的对错展开辩论，但我得承认，这种观点在小企业的雇主中间是非常普遍的。
我们不赞成这类观点，是因为我们所属的社会力求消除性别、种族、残疾和年龄上的歧视性障碍。
不过，英国“人事发展特许协会”(Chartered Institute of Personnel Development)的“多元化及平等机会”专家黛安娜?沃曼(Dianah Worman)特别提出，在招聘市场上，各种微妙难测的歧视随时随刻都在发生。她说：“决定的依据也许就是你的住处的邮编，你上过的大学或职业生涯中的任何间断。你能否获得这份工作，有可能取决于招聘单位在员工队伍的构成上愿意实行多大程度的包容。”
年龄歧视仍然是招聘过程中最有害的一种成见，在一个人职业生涯的两端都会出现。在开始工作的时候，上司也许会因为你缺乏经验而对你顾虑重重。但当你到了一定的年龄，公司想把你赶走的时候，经验似乎又无足轻重了。
经验和资历之间的平衡总是很难。最近，在一次研讨会上，我与一位比我年轻许多的经理争论了起来。我认为经验重要，并列举了经验的种种好处。但这位经理认为，经验并不重要，以资历为后盾的工作能力才应是挑选的唯一标准。我得承认，我们的观点都受到了各自不同年龄的影响。
我们不常听到学历方面的歧视。我很少听说，招聘者怀疑自己是否应该热衷于雇佣大学毕业生。但显然，这就是一个潜在的歧视根源。我们不把它看作是歧视的唯一原因是：在种种影响之下，我们已经非常看重高等教育了。
以上这些话并不表明我们需要呼吁立法反对所有的歧视。我们需要认识到：歧视的范围界定的越广，每一个人遭遇某种歧视的可能性也就越大。
人们越是觉得招聘者会对简历中的个人细节产生主观偏见，就会有更多的简历变成临床记录，只是简要陈述应聘者的工作成就。有人也许认为，事情本来就该这样。
但人不是机器。在工作之余，人们还有家庭和兴趣爱好。这应该值得庆贺而不是害怕。女性不应该觉得自己必须具有提防心态，为了得到一份工作而隐瞒事实。
与此同时，我们必须意识到，招聘者将行使他们的选择权，无论公平与否。我们还可以提出这样的问题：是否会有就业保障产生反效果的时候。布卢姆先生的言论就说明，对于某些小企业的雇主而言，当他们考虑到产妇权利的时候，就是就业保障产生反效果的时候。
