I´m thrilled to see much of what I´ve advised to professionals captured and reinforced in this nutshell format. Thanks. It really endorses my perspective. I come from the hiring standpoint. I´ve had to staff with almost no outside help at all in weeks given repeated start-ups. This kind of environment calls for a hands-on approach and there is little room for CV´s that contain adjectives, for instance. I´d like to suggest members and readers refrain from "using the reader´s time" with phrases such as "strong leadership skills" and the like.

What's important is the relevance of the company, of the mission, of the scope embraced and resulting achievements. This should be reported in such a manner that any outsider grasps the impact/contribution that person made to what was relevant to the enterprise´s continued growth not only provides factual information that one can envision might repeat itself (given the context) but DEMONSTRATES competencies, i.e., one couldn´t have reaped results without being a strong leader, for instance.

Competencies are tested via assorted techniques and cross-checked with references. I always advise folks to collect 360 feedback from clients, suppliers, peers, subordinates, study pals and so forth cause it´s helpful for self-improvement purposes. It´s about how you are perceived, replaces skills and competency statements and once posted on LinkedIn for instance, eases cross-checks.

The second point I´ve sort of mentioned earlier: it´s about your contributions, not the results themselves. I´ve come across statements such as "deployed roadshow at 7 countries" and found myself saying "So what?". Same for achievements that read "20% increase in gross revenues". Folks must realise readers are not acquainted with that context, that they are not statusing a peer and this is in alignment with what you mention about providing a short sentence on the company, the mission cause a very large local multinational at a given country may be entirely unknown to readers. For all I know, Coca-Cola and McDonald´s just might not ring bells at countries that take pride or rather their own or other brands.

Bottom line: the story must be told as if to a total stranger and almost everyone has faced that kind of situation in their social/family circles, for instance. I´ve been using the BSC approach with coachees to push them into telling their stories from a big picture perspective and its proven to be quite transformational. Many now grasp where their goals came from, what was the hidden agenda corporate strategy aimed at and they´ve become more aware of what ultimately matters and most importantly, how what they achieve impacts or matters. It is shaping more mature professionals and helps boost their self-esteem too.

In a nutshell, I´d add these two tips: refrain from using self-praising adjectives/listing skills and competencies (which sounds narcissistic/personal mktg "smoke") and let that emerge from the reported context plus endorsements and demonstrate assertive behaviour by reporting results from an impact/contribution perspective. After all, to me, the single question that interviews attempt to answer is: given that "we" have the context in hands, do I believe this candidate shall contribute with "us" and if so, to what extent. If a candidate is able to pick from his past experience sample situations (instead of telling the whole gory story) where he/she was able to CONTRIBUTE and demonstrates from his/her recent studies, readings and chats that he/she has envisioned what just might be some of "our" core challenges and uses our time to ask questions and refine that canvas, risks of their not being the "best fit" are mitigated and both just might start envisioning what Day 1 might feel and look like.

I´ve also been advising those who accept your 8 steps approach plus these two I mention, to join BlueSteps.