Latest
Joel Salomon: The Truth About MoneyReddit Is Putting Up a Login Wall. Wikipedia Won’t Be Far Behind.Victoria Chemko: The Body Is the First TechnologySir Patrick Stewart: A TributeA Yale Economist Says We Won’t Be Missed. He Forgot the Bread Line.Walter Koenig: A TributeAI Has Paid Off Outside Tech. Apollo Is Reading the Wrong Scoreboard.I Don’t Post Bad ARC Reviews. I Send the Author a Note.The Little Red Book of Stuff That Works!Your Kids Are Your Own FaultGrow a PairYou’re Broke Because You Want to BeIt’s Called Work for a Reason!No Time for TactShut Up, Stop Whining, and Get a LifeWilliam Bessette: AI Enablement and Child Welfare TechnologyFree Book Planning ToolsWhat’s New at The Writing King: Week of October 18, 2026Ghostwriting by the Numbers: Timelines, Word Counts and the First CallPromising Young Woman (2020) ReviewBillions for AI, Pennies for the Plumbing: AI Companies Should Pay to Keep PHP AlivePHP2Shell: AI Found a 22-Year-Old Crack Under Your Website in Two DaysPetrov Day: The Officer Who Didn’t Believe the ComputerKindle Unlimited Is Now Kindle+. AI Audiobooks Just Joined the BuffetWhen to Quit Writing a Book: I’ve Abandoned Dozens, and I’d Do It AgainMo Gawdat Says the AI Dystopia Starts in 2027. Read the List, Skip the DatesThe Society of Authors Signed an Ethical AI Charter, Then Ran From It in Eight DaysChina Is Using Bots to Fan the Data Center Backlash. The Backlash Is Still Real.Getty Images Filed for Bankruptcy. Can You Prove You Licensed Your Book’s Images?Fluff Words: Cut Them From Your Prose, Keep Them in Your DialogueWhere Are the Independent Bookstores and Public Libraries Worth Visiting in Tampa Bay? Author Richard Lowe Profiles 44 of ThemWhere Can Writers Learn Storytelling From Movies? Richard Lowe Publishes 1,226 Film and TV Reviews With Writing Craft NotesWhere Can You Hear Founders and Executives Tell Their Own Stories? Richard Lowe’s Leaders and Their Stories Publishes Every Unscripted Interview With a Full TranscriptWhat Should You Know Before Hiring a Ghostwriter? The Writing King Publishes 57 New Answers, Including What to Do When It Goes WrongAuthor Richard Lowe Publishes Eight Volumes of Enemies of You, a Researched Series on the Forces Working Against Ordinary AmericansThe Jackal (1997) ReviewThe Day of the Jackal (2024) ReviewYour First Novel Is an Apprentice Piece: What Beta Readers and Editors Can’t FixWhen the Cloud Gets Bombed: What the AWS Data Center Strikes Teach About BackupsHuman-Written Book Labels Are Gatekeeping With a FeeThe Enshittification of Microsoft Office: Why I Switched to a Free CloneGlobal Encryption Day: The Padlock Every Writer Depends OnWriting Your Worst Moments in a Memoir: Show the Evidence, Skip the VerdictHow to Register a Copyright for Your Book (and What Doesn’t Count)Your AI Chats Aren’t Private: Deleted ChatGPT Logs in CourtI Joined the Science Fiction Book Club 30 TimesThe Board Seat Scam: A 419 Letter in a Business SuitCitations in a Memoir: Endnotes, Footnotes and Fair UseThe Stores That Still Care: Publix, Walmart, Aldi, Best Buy and the RestThe Grocery Store Plan: Why Every Store Starts With Flowers
The Writing King Your Ethical Ghostwriter. Your Story, Done Right.

I Decided in Thirty Seconds Whether Your Resume Was Worth Reading

TL;DR: I spent two decades as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe’s, a sixteen billion dollar company with 38,000 employees across 400+ stores. I hired and fired, and I decided in about thirty seconds whether a resume was worth reading. Then in 2013 I left and had to rebuild a professional identity from nothing. That taught me the other half.

For two decades I was Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe’s, a sixteen billion dollar company with 38,000 employees across 400+ stores. I hired people. I fired people. I sat across the table and decided, in the first thirty seconds, whether a resume was worth any more of my time. I know what hiring managers are thinking during a job search because I was one for twenty years. And then in 2013 I left, and had to rebuild a professional identity from scratch at an age when most people assume the hard part is behind them. The book I wrote about it opens by welcoming the reader to the worst club they never wanted to join. That’s the correct tone. You got fired, or laid off, or furloughed, and it’s just become clear that it’s permanent.

How long does a recruiter spend on a resume?

A decision about whether to keep reading, and that’s all it is.

People hear thirty seconds and assume it means someone makes the whole hiring decision instantly and unfairly. It’s a sorting decision, and somebody with a stack of applications and a job that’s mostly other things makes it. The question they’re answering is does this document give me a reason to spend five more minutes.

Most don’t, because the document is written to survive instead of to interest anybody. A summary that would fit any candidate in the field. Responsibilities instead of results. Three pages of duties with no indication of what changed because this person was there.

The reader is looking for a reason to stop. That sounds harsh and it’s simply what happens when a posting draws four hundred replies.

What made me keep reading?

Something specific in the first few lines that I couldn’t have guessed.

A number. A system named. A problem described in terms that showed the person understood it instead of had been near it. Anything at all that could only have come from having done the work.

The candidates who did this well weren’t better writers. They’d simply worked out that the reader has no context and no patience, and that the burden of being interesting is entirely on the document.

Why does applying online work so badly?

Why applying online works so badlyApplying online puts you in the pile, and the pile is the worst place to be. Hiring managers fill positions from the pile when they have to, and fill them faster and more happily when somebody they trust says you should talk to this person, because that is risk reduction on a decision they will be accountable for. Which means the search is mostly conversations instead of documents. The resume matters once somebody has a reason to look at it, and getting somebody to have that reason is the actual work, which is the part most people leave until after they have spent three weeks on formatting.The pile against the referralManagers fill from the pile when they have to.1You apply onlineAnd join the pile, with everybody else2The manager is accountableFor a hire that could go wrongin public, with their name on it3A trusted referral reduces risk"You should talk to this person"beats any resume in the stack4So the work is conversationsThe resume matters once somebodyhas a reason to look at itMost people spend three weeks on formatting before starting the part that actually works.
Why applying online works so badlyApplying online puts you in the pile, and the pile is the worst place to be. Hiring managers fill positions from the pile when they have to, and fill them faster and more happily when somebody they trust says you should talk to this person, because that is risk reduction on a decision they will be accountable for. Which means the search is mostly conversations instead of documents. The resume matters once somebody has a reason to look at it, and getting somebody to have that reason is the actual work, which is the part most people leave until after they have spent three weeks on formatting.The pile against the referralManagers fill from the pile when they have to.1You apply onlineAnd join the pile, with everybody else2The manager is accountableFor a hire that could go wrongin public, with their name on it3A trusted referral reduces risk"You should talk to this person"beats any resume in the stack4So the work is conversationsThe resume matters once somebodyhas a reason to look at itMost people spend three weeks on formatting beforestarting the part that actually works.

Because it puts you in the pile, and the pile is the worst place to be. I filled positions from the pile when I had to. I filled them faster and more happily when somebody I trusted said, you should talk to this person. That was risk reduction on a decision I’d be accountable for, and every hiring manager does the same thing.

Which means the search is mostly conversations instead of documents. The resume matters once somebody has a reason to look at it. Giving them that reason is the work, and most people leave it until after they’ve spent three weeks on formatting. My best hires came when I barely read the resume at all. I gave it a quick glance, saw the basic stuff was there, and went straight to talking with the person.

What did leaving in 2013 teach me?

The instinct is to disappear until the resume is perfect and the story is sorted, and that instinct costs weeks.

That knowing all of this from the hiring side doesn’t make it easy from the other one. I’d spent twenty years being the person other people were trying to reach. When I left, I had to rebuild a professional identity from nothing, and the things I’d relied on for two decades were all attached to the role instead of to me. The title had been doing work I hadn’t noticed it doing.

That’s the situation most people are in after a job ends, and the shock is that the answer to what do you do stopped being available, and a surprising amount was resting on it.

What should you do in the first week?

Handle the money and the paperwork first, because they have deadlines and the emotional part doesn’t.

Then start talking to people before you start polishing anything. The instinct is to disappear until the resume is perfect and the story is sorted, and that instinct costs weeks. Nobody you know needs the resume to be finished before they can tell you who’s hiring.

The order people usually choose is the reverse of the order that works. Perfect the document, then apply into the pile, then eventually and reluctantly start telling people. Turning that round is most of the improvement available.

Does being let go hurt your chances?

Less than the fear suggests, and I say that as somebody who did the letting go. Layoffs are ordinary. Nobody I ever interviewed lost a chance because a role had been eliminated. Two things did cause damage. An unexplained gap, because it invites the reader to invent the reason. And visible anger about the previous employer, because whatever the merits, the interviewer is imagining you discussing them the same way in a year. The fix for both is a plain sentence. The role was eliminated in a restructure, here’s what I’ve been doing since. Delivered without heat, it ends the topic in about ten seconds.

What stops a resume reader and what keeps them reading
Stops the reader Keeps them reading
A summary that would fit any candidate in the field Something specific in the first few lines nobody could guess
Responsibilities Results: what was different because you were there
Three pages of duties A number, or a system named
A problem you were near A problem described in terms that show you understood it
An unexplained gap One plain sentence: the role was eliminated, here’s what I’ve done since
Visible anger about the previous employer The same sentence, delivered without heat

My take

Shelve the resume and start calling people. Nobody you know needs a finished document before they can tell you who’s hiring. Most people do it backwards, polish, apply into the pile, then reluctantly tell friends. Flip the order. If you were let go, say so in one plain sentence without heat and move on. Employers hold gaps and anger against you, and a layoff on its own rarely costs you anything.

How do you write a resume that survives a thirty second scan?

Write for a reader with thirty seconds and no context. Put the most specific thing you’ve done in the first three lines.

Results instead of responsibilities. What was different because you were there.

Spend your effort on conversations. The document only matters once somebody is already interested.

Say the gap out loud before anyone asks. One sentence, no heat.

Don’t wait until you feel ready. The people who take three weeks to compose themselves lose three weeks and don’t feel any readier at the end of it.

The strange part of writing this book was recognizing myself on both sides of it. I spent twenty years being the person with the stack of resumes and thirty seconds, and then one year being the person whose document was in somebody else’s stack. The second taught me more about the first than the first ever did.

The book on this: Suddenly Unemployed is 21 chapters on the first weeks after a job ends, written from the side of the table that does the hiring and the firing.

From the author
Suddenly Unemployed by Richard Lowe

Suddenly Unemployed
Job searching after a layoff is its own problem. Suddenly Unemployed is my honest guide to it, including the first two weeks nobody writes about.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long do hiring managers spend on a resume?
Less than most applicants believe. I made a keep or discard decision in roughly thirty seconds, and I wasn’t unusual. That’s arithmetic when a posting draws hundreds of applications and reviewing them is a fraction of your job.
What gets a resume discarded fastest?
Anything that makes the reader work. A summary that could describe anybody, responsibilities listed instead of results, and no clear answer to what this person did that mattered. The reader is looking for a reason to stop, because stopping is how the pile gets smaller.
Does applying online work?
Sometimes, and it’s the least efficient route available. The applications that get read are the ones attached to a name somebody recognizes. That’s a human being reducing risk on a decision they’ll be accountable for.
What should you do in the first week after losing a job?
Deal with the money and the paperwork before the emotional work, because the paperwork has deadlines. Then start talking to people you know, before you polish anything, because the search runs on conversations instead of documents.
Is it harder to get hired after being let go?
Less than people fear. Layoffs are common enough that they carry little stigma. What does damage a search is the gap being unexplained, or the candidate being visibly angry about it in an interview.

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.

0 comments

No comments yet. Yours can be the first.

Was this useful?

Leave a comment