With all the recent M&A activity in the finance community, many job seekers now face a new challenge when updating their resumes: “How do I accurately describe my work history on my resume without confusing my reader, offering misleading information, or looking like a job hopper?” Frequently I review resumes from candidates that list each company separately, even if they became an employee of that company through a merger and even if their job title and scope of responsibilities stayed the same. This creates redundancy and wastes space on the printed page…and from a marketing perspective, your interests may not be best served by listing so many companies. While right now, everyone is cognizant of who bought who, some of that knowledge will wane in time and the recruiter or hiring manager reviewing your resume may make some incorrect assumptions about your chronology and work performance when so many companies are listed.An alternative to listing each employer separately is to use the company name that best positions you and then give a brief explanation of the M&A activity or former company. For example, if your specialty is in trusts and wealth management and you worked at U.S. Trust before it was bought by Bank of America, your resume might say: U.S. TRUST (now Bank of America) because you want your expertise in the trusts field to be prominent.If you worked for a troubled company that was acquired by another company, list the new company first and put the former company in parenthesis: BANK OF AMERICA (formerly Merrill Lynch). This strategy allows you to call attention to the great work you did at Merrill without putting the transitional phase in the spotlight. If the merger you were involved in occurred a long time ago and dates you, you can choose to leave that company name off and just go with the newer, more relevant company. For example, if you started in the industry at Bankers Trust, but worked there when they were acquired by Deutsche Bank or if you worked with State Street before Deutsche Bank took over, it may be in your best interest to just list Deutsche Bank. You should still list your full chronology, but leave off the name of the company that no longer exists.
— 2 Comments —
Comments are closed.
Hi Barbara,
With the increased tempo, this post has relevance for all. Just a thought about words would this be considered more a “tactic,” than a “strategy?”
The concept has merit. Once can see all sorts of interesting ramifications.
Thank you,
Dan
FWIW, I often tell candidates to put “formerly known as” or “currently known as” along with the company’s current name. This can be especially helpful when the other name is more well-known.