English Communication Module 1 163 Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 72, Number 2, June 2009 163-176 DOI: 10.1177/1080569909334015 2009 by -

English Communication Module 1

163

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Assignment on

English Communication Module 1 163 Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 72, Number 2, June 2009 163-176 DOI: 10.1177/1080569909334015 2009 by

From as Little as $13/Page

Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 72, Number 2, June 2009 163-176
DOI: 10.1177/1080569909334015
2009 by the Association for Business Communication

EMPLOYER PREFERENCES FOR
RSUMS AND COVER LETTERS

Nancy M. Schullery
Linda Ickes
Western Michigan University

Stephen E. Schullery
Eastern Michigan University

This article reports the results of a sur vey of employers preferences for rsum style,
rsum deliver y method, and cover letters. Employers still widely prefer the standard
chronological rsum, with only 3% desiring a scannable rsum. The vast majority of
employers prefer electronic deliver y, either by email (46%) or at the companys Web
site (38%), with only 7% preferring a paper copy. Cover letters are preferred by a major-
ity (56%). Preferences regarding rsum style and cover letters were independent of
national (USA) vs. multinational geographic range, company size, type of industr y, or
respondents job function. Smaller companies prefer rsum deliver y by email, and
human resources workers prefer deliver y using the companys Web site.

Keywords: rsums; cover letters; scannable rsum; employer preferences

PREPARATION FOR EMPLOYMENT searches is a standard com-
ponent of most business communication courses and textbooks.
In recent years, however, numerous anecdotal experiences relayed
by student job applicants have caused us to question the wisdom of
spending classroom time teaching multiple rsum formats and
cover letters. Company representatives at our career fairs have
increasingly declined even to accept a printed rsum while speak-
ing with the student. Instead, students are directed to company Web
sites for employment application and rsum submission. There, the
applicants are prompted to enter their education, skills, and experi-
ence directly into a proprietary series of labeled boxes, which gather
information into the employers databases for sorting convenience.
A similar option for prompted entry of rsum information into
searchable databases is provided at job Web sites, such as Monster.

164 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2009

com. Students return to the classroom confused about whether they
really need a prepared rsum of any kind. The scannable rsum
seems to be particularly problematic.

In the late 1990s, the scannable format was the most up-to-date
style for a rsum (Baker, DeTienne, & Smart, 1998; Quible, 1995;
Roever & McGaughey, 1997) and is still included in business
communication textbooks (e.g., Locker & Kienzler, 2008; Thill &
Bove, 2007). The scannable rsum offered employers the ability
to sort large numbers of applicants quickly and without bias by any
criteria desired, but not without a price. The scanning equipment was
expensive and required an extra step of manual paper handling to
scan a printed copy into the scanners memory, where optical
character recognition software could then convert the printed text
into digital code. Companies that could afford neither to develop
their own proprietary systems nor to purchase a commercial package
had to contract to have the work done. Although usage was
widespreadeven described as a revolution (Kennedy & Morrow,
1995)it was not universal. A 1998 survey of Fortune 500 companies
found that one third of the respondents had no plans to adopt an
electronic rsum management system (Baker et al., 1998). The
majority (61%) of those that did use such a system did not scan the
data in at all, but input it manually by keyboard. Further, a 1996
study of 236 companies in a rural Missouri community found that
most were unaware of the rsum management technology, none
used it, and only three had plans to use it in the future (Roever &
McGaughey, 1997). Even for companies possessing the technology,
anything short of 100% compliance left it necessary to maintain
redundant systems for handling applications.

The scanning technology also imposes a burden on the applicant.
For the scanner to successfully read and faithfully translate the
information, scannable rsums must follow a prescribed format that
differs substantially from the traditional chronological rsum (e.g.,
Locker & Kienzler, 2008; Thill & Bove, 2007) and that may differ
among employers. That is, scannable rsums must be attractive to
the computers eye, not the human eye (Roever & McGaughey,
1997), which raises both content and format issues. Most crucial, the
applicant must provide a Keywords section containing several
carefully selected noun, noun phrase, or adjective descriptors that

Schuller y et al. / EMPLOYER PREFERENCES 165

the scanning software will use to match the person with its
preprogrammed set of words for a specific job opening. This requires
careful scrutiny of the position description, as well as familiarity
with the industry and its jargon; advice on keyword selection
abounds (e.g., Hansen, n.d.; MacMillan, 2007). Special formatting
requirements include flush left margins with only one type of
information on each line (e.g., home phone number, cell phone
number, or email address), sans serif font styles, and no use of
bolding, italics, underlining, or similar features that might add visual
interest for human readers. At least with the early scanner technology,
use of a laser-printed original was preferred. Given the extent of
these differences, applicants have been advised to prepare two
versions of their rsums, one customized for machine viewing and
one for human viewing (Roever & McGaughey, 1997).

Options for transmitting rsums, whether traditional or scannable,
have included hand delivering or mailing an original paper copy,
faxing the document, and emailing it as either text or attachment. In
addition, the applicant could direct a potential employer to his or her
personal Web site to view a rsum and related materials. Each
method has limitations and advantages: Mailing paper is slow but,
assuming no damage is done in transit, perfectly preserves the
quality of the original document and minimizes risk of scanning
errors. Faxing is fast, but equipment availability might be a problem,
and the document quality can be degraded. Emailing is fast and
inexpensive but historically has been plagued with virus hazards
and incompatibilities of printing and word processing software, and
ultimate quality depends on the recipients printer. A 1998 survey of
Fortune 500 companies found that only 19.7% accepted rsums by
email, whereas 98% accepted rsums by fax (Baker et al., 1998).
Relying on the applicants personal Web site permits frequent
updating as well as ready linking to related materials (Krause, 1997)
but also requires relying on the employer to take the initiative
regarding ones application, which is a questionable strategy.

Important technology advances have occurred in the past 10
years. Improvements in antivirus software, standardization of word
processing software, and use of PDF (Adobe Systems Portable
Document Format) files have made routine the exchange of
documents with minimal risk of loss of laboriously crafted formatting.

166 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2009

Dot matrix printers have been replaced by inkjet or laser printers,
which permit offices and individuals routinely to make inexpensive,
high-quality printouts. Perhaps of most importance, development of
online Internet sites now allows an applicant to type in directly or
copy-and-paste a traditional rsum, either in entirety or in sections,
into the computer of an employer or a third-party jobs Web site. The
need for manual scanning is gone, paradoxically just as scanning
hardware and optical character recognition software have become
inexpensive features of home computer printer systems. Computer
capacity and software developments have made it possible for a
document to be searched rapidly for any word or phrase, not just a
few preselected keywords. A recent survey of Fortune 500 companies
found that 77% require an online response to job positions posted on
the companys careers Web site (Taleo Research, 2005). Note that
the requirement of online application should not be confused with
endorsement of scannable rsums; the same survey found that the
vast majority is avoiding steps such as fax, traditional mail and
scanning rsums into their digital software, which slows down the
application process. These developments clearly have made the
admonition of Baker et al. (1998) for astute educators and job
seekers to continue to monitor industry trends and to adapt their
employment documents accordingly (p. 18) as urgent today as
Quibles (1995) admonition for business communication teachers to
keep up to date by teaching electronic (i.e., scannable) rsums
was a few years earlier.

In the present study, we respond to this imperative and to compel-
ling evidence that an important change may have already occurred
regarding rsums and cover letters. We ask the following three-part
research question:

Research Question: What are employers preferences regarding rsum
style, rsum delivery method, and having a cover letter accompany
the rsum?

To address the question, we have surveyed a sample of employers
from U.S. or multinational companies (MNC) that recruit at our
university. Their preferences for style of rsum, method to receive
the rsum, and inclusion of a cover letter are presented, along with

Schuller y et al. / EMPLOYER PREFERENCES 167

an investigation of effects of company geographic range, company
size, type of industry represented, and the job position of the respon-
dent. The findings will help business communication instructors
make the most efficient use of precious instructional time as they
seek to optimize the preparation and minimize the frustration of
students about to enter the workplace.

METHOD

The Sample

We were interested in using a cross-section of all of the companies and
their representatives that our students were likely to deal with, rather
than, for example, only Fortune 500 companies. Thus, we used a con-
venience sample of contact persons for all of the organizations that
recruit at our university. Surveys were sent by email to 1,446 persons,
and 234 completed responses were received. In order to make the
present report of general interest, we used publicly available informa-
tion to eliminate companies that had only a local or regional geo-
graphic range, leaving a sample of 140 consisting of 48 U.S. companies
and 92 MNCs. We defined a national company as one having facilities
located in at least three different regions of the United States and an
MNC as having facilities in at least two countries.

The sample contained a wide range of company sizes and types
of industries. The distribution of company sizes, in terms of numbers
of employees, is shown in Figure 1. The sample contained a majority
(53%) of companies with over 5,000 employees and 11% with fewer
than 100 employees. The distribution of industry types is shown in
Figure 2. The largest single group (31%) was manufacturing,
followed by retail/wholesale (21%).

The job functions of the persons who responded to the survey are
shown in Figure 3. The majority (54%) were in human resources,
with the remainder spread over five other categories.

The Survey

The survey asked three simple questions dealing with the three
elements of our research question. Note that we purposely avoided use
of ambiguous current terminology, such as electronic, Web-based,
and online:

168 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2009

1. What style of rsum does your company prefer? Five options
were provided: standard chronological, standard chronological in
text format, scannable rsum with key nouns, none (company appli-
cation used), and other.

2. What is your companys preferred way of receiving rsums?
Seven options were provided: paper copy, entered in entirety at com-
pany Web site, entered in sections at Web site prompts, pasted into an
email, sent as email attachment, access from candidates Web site,
and other.

3. Do you prefer to receive an application (i.e., cover) letter with a
rsum? Yes or no options were provided.

In addition, demographic information was requested, including
the companys name, size, and type of industry, the respondents job
function, and additional comments at the respondents option. The
optional comments were used only to help clarify and categorize the
respondents job function.

> 5000

1000-4999

500-999

100-499

50-99
1-49

F
re

q
u

e
n

c
y

6
16

6
10

Figure 1. Distribution of Company Sizes in the Sample in Terms of Numbers
of Employees
NOTE: Number of respondents whose companies are in each category is shown.

Schuller y et al. / EMPLOYER PREFERENCES 169

Statistical Methodology

Chi-square analysis was performed to determine whether rsum
and cover letter preferences are related to the four demographic
variables: geographic range of the company, company size, type of
industry, and respondent function. Because this analysis was explor-
atory rather than hypothesis testing, and to minimize reporting of
effects that might be sample dependent or of little practical conse-
quence, we used a conservative alpha level of .01 and collapsed
categories as necessary to assure a minimum statistical power of
greater than 50% for a medium-size effect (Cohen, 1988). Also, a
Monte Carlo implementation of Fishers exact test was used to
calculate the p values, allowing for unbalanced categories or low
cell counts. When an overall statistically significant relationship at

Transportation

Technology

Social or Religious

School/College

Retail/W
holesale

M
anufacturing

Insurance

Hospitals and Health

G
overnm

ent

Finance

Engineering Services

Com
m

unication

Banking

Adm
in. Support

F
re

q
u

e
n

c
y

12
6

933
7

55 1
21

Figure 2. Types of Industries Represented in the Sample
NOTE: Number of respondents from each type is shown.

170 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2009

p < .01 was found, post hoc analysis to identify specific cells with statistically unlikely populations was done using adjusted standard- ized residuals (adj. resid.) greater than 3.0. That corresponds to a discrepancy between observed and expected cell counts more than three standard deviations above the average such difference in the sample (SPSS Base 8.0 Applications Guide, 1998). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Preferred Style of Rsum Responses to the question regarding preferences for rsum style are summarized in Figure 4. A large majority (71%) of employers prefer standard chronological rsums, with another 21% preferring them in text format. Five percent of the companies have no prefer- ence or want only their own applications. Only 3% (n = 4) prefer the scannable rsums. Figure 3. Job Functions of Respondents in the Sample NOTE: Number of respondents in each job category is shown. Recruiting Professional Contact Hum an Resources Executive M anagem ent Dept. Hiring M anager Adm in. Support F re q u e n c y 80 60 40 20 0 1416 75 9 25 1 Schuller y et al. / EMPLOYER PREFERENCES 171 Chi-square analysis showed that these preferences were unrelated to the companys geographic range, size, or type of industry, or to the job function of the respondent. To eliminate sparsely populated cells and improve the statistical power of the chi-square analyses, several related variable categories were collapsed. A maximum of three categories for a demographic variable could be used and still achieve a statistical power greater than 50% in tests involving preference variables having as many as four categories. The original six categories of company size (Figure 1) were collapsed into three: 1-99; 100-4,999; and > 5,000 employees. The 14 types of company
industries (Figure 2) were collapsed into three: manufacturing, sales,
and services. The six categories of respondent job function, which
were dominated by the human resources respondents (Figure 3),
were collapsed into two: human resources and other.

Because the viability of the scannable rsum is of particular
interest, we scrutinized the attributes of the four companies that
preferred that style, looking for any helpful insights that the statistical

Standard/Text Form
at

Standard

Scannable

No Preference

P
e
rc

e
n

t
80

5
3

Figure 4. Percent of Respondents Who Preferred Each Style of Rsum

172 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2009

analysis might have missed. None were found beyond the fact that
all four were MNCs. One was in the smallest size group. Types of
industry represented were manufacturing (2), technology, and retail/
wholesale trade. Two of the respondents were from human resources
and the others were department hiring manager and executive
management. Three wanted the rsum entered at the Web site,
either in entirety (1) or in sections (2), and the other preferred email
attachment. Three preferred cover letters; one did not. We note also
that there were no respondents who preferred scannable rsums
among the local and regional companies that were culled from the
original set of survey respondents.

Preferred Way to Receive Rsums

The most preferred ways to receive rsums are summarized in
Figure 5. Email is the most preferred modality (46%), with 41%
preferring attachments and 5% preferring the rsum pasted into the
body of the email. The second-most preferred modality is entry at
the companys Web site (38%), with 34% preferring the rsum
copied in its entirety and 4% preferring entry in sections. Paper
rsums are preferred by only 7%, and none of these respondents
preferred to obtain the rsum from the candidates Web site.

These preferences are unrelated to company geographic range or
type of industry but do depend on the companys size (2 = 17.1, df =
6, N = 140, p = .006) and the respondents job function (2 = 30.3,
df = 6, N = 140, p = .000). For the statistical analysis, because there
were relatively few preferences for rsums pasted into emails or for
Web site entry in sections, the original six ways to receive rsums
(Figure 5) were collapsed into four categories: company Web
site, email, paper, and other. Using those and previously described
collapsed categories, we found that the small companies (199
employees) were overrepresented among those preferring to receive
rsums by email (observed/expected = 14/7.3, adj. resid. = 3.6).
The large companies (> 5,000 employees) were underrepresented
(observed/expected = 25/33.8, adj. resid. = 3.0). These preferences
for or against email delivery were compensated for primarily by
opposing biases regarding Web site delivery, although the adjusted
residuals for the latter cells did not reach the 3.0 threshold.

Schuller y et al. / EMPLOYER PREFERENCES 173

Respondents who listed their job function as human resources
were overrepresented among those who preferred applicants to
use the companys Web site (observed/expected = 43/28.4, adj.
resid. = 5.1). This overrepresentation was compensated for by
underrepresentation in all three of the other rsum delivery
categories, most strongly other. One speculative rationalization for
this dichotomy is that human resource workers might be more likely
to work in a remote corporate office and have less direct contact with
applicants. As such, they might be more wedded to, or content with,
the impersonal Web site technology than are department hiring
managers, recruiters, and professional contacts, who interview or
interact more directly with the applicants.

Preference for Cover Letters

Fifty-six percent of the respondents preferred to receive cover letters
along with the application or rsum. This preference was unrelated

W
ebsite/sections

W
ebsite/entirety

Paper

O
ther

E-m
ail/Pasted

E-m
ail/Attachm

ent

P
e
rc

e
n

t
50

0
4

795

Figure 5. Percent of Respondents Who Preferred Each Method of Resume
Deliver y

174 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2009

to the companys range, size, or type of industry or the job function
of the respondent, and is essentially unchanged from the 60% prefer-
ence reported previously (Baker et al., 1998).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The standard chronological style of rsum is still the standard,
irrespective of company size, location, or industry, or the job func-
tion of the hiring contact person. In contrast, scannable rsums are
preferred only by a very small fraction (3%) of companies.

Electronic delivery of rsums appears largely to have replaced
paper. Eighty-four percent prefer delivery either by email or by
company Web site, and only 7% want paper. Email delivery is
particularly preferred by smaller companies, and Web site delivery
is preferred by human resources individuals. The 8-fold preference
for email attachments over pasting into the message narrative
suggests a minimal concern over attachment-borne viruses. None of
the respondents preferred to go to the applicants Web site to obtain
a rsum. Cover letters are preferred by a majority of employers
(56%), although the study did not investigate their preferred delivery
method.

We conclude that business communication courses should continue
to provide instruction in preparation of standard chronological
rsums and cover letters, but with the understanding that the
rsums are much more likely to be delivered over the Internet than
in paper form. Nonetheless, construction of a basic printable rsum
probably remains a wise investment of time in that such a complete,
organized, and well-phrased inventory of an applicants skills and
experiences would be convenient for multiple potential delivery
venues, including submission by email as either attachment or text,
copying selected sections into proprietary Web site forms, or prin-
ting a paper copy for carrying to an interview or in the event of a
chance encounter with a potential employer. In contrast, constructing
scannable rsums could be considered a low priority for inclusion
in the syllabus, as their low demand by employers justifies neither the
required instructional time nor the student anxieties associated with
the unique formatting requirements. Similarly, although employers
might view personal, or social networking, Web sites to learn more

Schuller y et al. / EMPLOYER PREFERENCES 175

about an applicant of interest (e.g., Banjo, 2008), they do not seem
to be interested in going to such Web sites in search of rsums;
spending class time to help students perfect their Web sites for the
purpose of rsum display also should be a low priority.

The data provided in the present study should assist instructors in
optimizing classroom time and help resolve differences between
students personal experiences and the advice found in textbooks
or on employment Web sites. Of course, it is to be expected that
exceptions to the patterns reported will exist at the individual employer
level, and students should be encouraged to be alert for the need to
customize their application materials accordingly. Further, although
we know of no reason that our sample of employers should be biased
with respect to the issues studied, replication of the investigation
with other samples is encouraged.

References

Baker, W. H., DeTienne, K., & Smart, K. L. (1998). How Fortune 500 companies are using
electronic resume management systems. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 8-19.

Banjo, S. (2008, February 17). Washing your Web face. Kalamazoo Gazette, Wall Street
Journal Sunday, p. 64.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hansen, K. (n.d.). Quintessential careers: Tapping the power of keywords to enhance your
resumes effectiveness. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.quintcareers.com/
printable/resume_keywords.html

Kennedy, J. L., & Morrow, T. J. (1995). Electronic resume revolution (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley.

Krause, T. (1997). Preparing an online resume. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(1),
159-161.

Locker, K., & Kienzler, D. S. (2008). Business and administrative communication (8th ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.

MacMillan, D. (2007, May 7). The art of the online resume: How to get yours past the elec-
tronic filters that cull the herd of applicants. Business Week, 86. Retrieved February 16,
2008, from ProQuest database: http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/pqd-
web? did=1264547911&sid=3&Fmt=3&clientId=32427&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Quibble, Z. (1995). Electronic resumes: Their time is coming. Business Communication
Quarterly, 58(3), 5-9.

Roever, C., & McGaughey, Y. (1997). Preparing a scannable resume. Business Communication
Quarterly, 60(1), 156-159.

SPSS Base 8.0 applications guide. (1998). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Taleo Research. (2005). Trends in job application medium. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from

https://www.taleo.com/research/whitepapers/trends-job-applications-medium-8.html
Thill, J. V., & Bove, C. L. (2007). Excellence in business communication (7th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

176 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2009

Nancy M. Schuller y is director of undergraduate programs and professor of business
information systems, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University.
Address correspondence to Dr. Nancy M. Schuller y, Business Information Systems
Department, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University, 1903 West
Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5412; email: nancy.schuller [emailprotected]

Linda Ickes is director of the Haworth College of Business Career Center at Western
Michigan University. Address correspondence to Linda Ickes, Haworth College of
Business, 3020 Schneider Hall, Western Michigan University, 1903 West Michigan
Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5470; email: [emailprotected]

Stephen E. Schuller y is emeritus professor of chemistr y, Eastern Michigan University.
Address correspondence to Dr. Stephen Schuller y, 1020 Eldridge Drive, Kalamazoo,
MI 49006; email: sschuller [emailprotected] 163