To complete their study, the researchers gave 135 recruiters eight different resumes to evaluate. Two of the resumes were composed of all paid jobs, with one being very relevant to the open position and one being irrelevant. Two were composed of all volunteer experience, again with one being highly relevant and the other not. The remaining four were composed of a combination of paid and volunteer work, with varying levels of relevance.
Interestingly, the results showed that recruiters did not find paid experience to be more attractive than volunteer experience in general. There was no significant difference in how the resumes with nothing but paid jobs compared with those that had only volunteering backgrounds. Still, recruiters most liked to see a combination of both.
The top-rated resumes were the ones that had both relevant paid and relevant volunteer experience. That was followed by those that had both relevant paid experience and unrelated volunteer work. The resumes that emphasized only the candidate’s related paid employment and showed no volunteer work at all were less well received.
So, if you’re doing something these days to give back, don’t forget to include it on your resume. We may believe—especially in a tough economy with still-high levels of unemployment—that employers only want to see the sales targets we’ve hit, the new clients we’ve brought in, or the size of the budgets or teams that we’ve managed.
However, they apparently also want to hear about applicable decisions we’ve made on nonprofit boards, funds we’ve raised for local causes or events we’ve organized that show off our organizational skills. For once, at least, relevance matters more than money.
Jena McGregor is a columnist for the Washington Post’s On Leadership section.
More from On Leadership:
Great leadership books in 2012
Grover Norquist has more to lose than Republican leaders do
Washington lost its love of the deal
Like On Leadership? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
@post_lead | @jenamcgregor | @lily_cunningham