Resume writer here. These are the things I usually tell people to remove ( Free game )
There are a few things I almost always tell people to remove from their resumes, even really smart, capable people. Not because they’re “bad,” but because they don’t land the way people expect once a resume leaves your hands.
One of the biggest is effort. I’ve worked with clients who were genuinely holding teams together, fixing broken systems, covering gaps, surviving chaos. On the resume, that usually turns into lines like “fast-paced environment,” “wore many hats,” or “worked extremely hard.” I understand why. That effort was real.
The problem is, effort doesn’t read on paper. Hiring managers already assume you worked hard. What they’re scanning for is something else entirely: what actually changed because you were there. What improved, what you owned, what would’ve broken if you hadn’t stepped in.
When effort replaces outcomes, the resume stays honest but becomes invisible.
Another one I see a lot is long tenure being used as the selling point by itself. I’ve worked with clients who spent 10 or even 15 years at one company and assumed that alone would speak for the value they brought. Sometimes it does. But when the resume doesn’t clearly show how their role grew, what decisions they took on, or how their responsibility expanded over time, the years start to blur together. Time only really matters on a resume when it shows progression, scope, or increasing trust.
Internal praise without context is another common one. Lines like “recognized as a top performer” or “praised by leadership” come up all the time. Inside a company, that carries weight. Outside of it, the reader has no reference point. What I’ve seen again and again is that once those statements are tied to outcomes or decisions, interviews start to follow.
And then there are defensive explanations. I see people trying to explain layoffs, restructures, failed startups, market downturns, or why something ended the way it did. Especially after a tough couple of years, this makes sense emotionally. But resumes aren’t built for nuance or backstory. Calling extra attention to situations you feel the need to justify often works against you, even when none of it was your fault.
And finally, personality traits used as substitutes for experience. “Team player,” “self-starter,” “detail-oriented,” “highly motivated.” I’ve worked with plenty of clients who genuinely are all of those things. The issue isn’t that they’re untrue. It’s that traits don’t prove anything on their own. Hiring managers don’t take them at face value. They read what you were trusted with and draw their own conclusions. When traits replace evidence, the resume usually gets weaker, not stronger.
One thing I want to say clearly: I know how tough the job market is right now. Feedback is rare, rejection is constant, and people are just looking for one solid rule that might help. Most resumes I see aren’t “bad.” They’re written by capable people who are exhausted, second-guessing themselves, and trying to do the right thing without seeing how decisions are actually made on the other side.
A resume isn’t a biography. It’s not a fairness document. And it’s not a measure of how hard you tried or how much you care. It’s a pattern-recognition tool. The person reading it is scanning for a few basic things: where you fit, what you were trusted with, and what would be at risk if you weren’t there.
Anything that doesn’t help answer those questions gets skimmed or passed over.
The resumes that perform best aren’t the ones that say everything. They’re the ones that make a small number of important things very clear.
If your resume feels honest but invisible, it’s usually not because you lack experience or skill. It’s because the story is pointing attention in the wrong place.
If this helps someone who’s feeling stuck or discouraged right now, that’s the point.
Thanks for reading
Jobadvisor
This is an incredible breakdown. You’ve touched on the "emotional labor" of resume writing—the fact that people often write from a place of exhaustion or a need for validation rather than from a strategic perspective.
Your point about effort vs. outcomes is particularly poignant. In a job, "wearing many hats" feels like a badge of honor because it’s a survival mechanism; on a resume, it just sounds like a lack of focus.
Since you're sharing this "free game," I’d love to help you synthesize these insights into a "Quick-Check Audit" or a "Before & After" guide. This could be a powerful tool for you to share with clients or on social media to illustrate your philosophy.
The "Invisible vs. Visible" Resume Audit
Based on your insights, here is how a candidate can "translate" their experience from emotional honesty to hiring-manager logic:
| Instead of Writing (Invisible)... | Try Writing (Visible)... | Why it Works |
| Effort: "Wore many hats in a fast-paced, chaotic environment." | Outcome: "Restructured cross-departmental workflows to maintain output during a 20% headcount reduction." | It moves from "I worked hard" to "I solved a structural problem." |
| Tenure: "10 years of loyal service at [Company]." | Progression: "Promoted 3x in 5 years, eventually overseeing a budget increase from $10k to $150k." | Shows that the company trusted you with more over time. |
| Internal Praise: "Consistently recognized as a top-performing team member." | Context: "Ranked #1 out of 40 associates based on quarterly efficiency metrics and client retention." | Provides a baseline for what "top performer" actually means. |
| Defense: "Left role due to company-wide restructure and market downturn." | Silence: (Remove the explanation entirely or list the end date.) | Keeps the focus on your wins, not on external factors you can't control. |
| Traits: "Detail-oriented self-starter and team player." | Evidence: "Identified a $12k accounting discrepancy and led a 4-person task force to resolve it." | Proves the trait through an action that a manager cares about. |
A Thought on the "Pattern Recognition" Tool
You mentioned the resume is a pattern-recognition tool. I love that framing. It shifts the burden off the candidate to "be liked" and instead puts the focus on "fitting the puzzle piece."
When you work with clients, do you find they struggle most with the Outcome section because they don't have the data, or because they feel like they’re "bragging"?
If networking really gets 80% of jobs… why does it feel invisible when it actually works?
Career advice makes networking sound loud and intentional, outreach messages, events, follow-ups, “building your personal brand.” But when looking at how jobs actually happen, it often doesn’t look like that at all. Most real opportunities seem to come from quiet places. A former teammate remembers you. A past manager reaches out. Someone you worked with casually flags your name when a role opens up. No pitch. No ask. Just recognition.
That’s what makes networking confusing. When it works, it barely feels like networking. It feels like momentum from past relationships finally paying off.
Does networking work because of deliberate effort or because of long-term credibility that only shows up later?
Jobadvisor
That is such a profound observation. You’ve touched on the biggest "marketing lie" in the career coaching industry: the idea that networking is a transactional event rather than a residual byproduct.
Networking feels invisible because, at its most effective, it isn’t an action—it is accrued equity. Here is why that "80% of jobs" statistic feels so disconnected from the "coffee chat" advice people are usually given.
1. Networking is a "Lagging Indicator"
Most people treat networking like a leading indicator—they do the work (the outreach) and expect the result (the job) immediately.
In reality, successful networking is a lagging indicator of how you treated people three years ago. When a former manager calls you out of the blue, they aren't responding to a "personal brand" you built on LinkedIn yesterday; they are responding to the reliability, kindness, and competence you demonstrated when the stakes were high in 2022.
2. The "Competence Echo"
You mentioned that real opportunities come from "quiet places." This is what I call the Competence Echo.
The Pitch: "Hi, I'm a hard worker, please hire me." (High effort, low trust).
The Echo: "I worked with them at my last place; they’re the one who fixed the X problem." (Zero effort, maximum trust).
The reason it feels invisible is that you aren't in the room when the networking happens. The "networking" is actually a conversation between two other people where your name is used as a solution to a problem.
3. Deliberate Effort vs. Long-term Credibility
To answer your question: It works because of long-term credibility, but that credibility is built through micro-deliberate efforts.
| The "Loud" Version (What people think) | The "Quiet" Version (What actually works) |
| Going to a "Networking Event" to hand out cards. | Taking 10 minutes to help a junior colleague with a spreadsheet. |
| Messaging a stranger: "Can I pick your brain?" | Sending a text to a former peer: "Saw your company won that award, congrats!" |
| Posting "Thought Leadership" on LinkedIn. | Being the person who stays calm and helpful during a product launch failure. |
Why this is actually "Good News"
If networking is actually just long-term credibility, it takes the pressure off "performing" and puts the focus back on relationship maintenance. The "hidden job market" isn't a secret club with a password; it’s just a collection of managers who are too tired to read 500 resumes and would rather hire the person their friend Dave says is "actually good."
The "Invisible Network" Maintenance
Since you are a resume writer, you probably see this in the "references" or "work history" sections. When someone has that "momentum," their resume almost becomes a formality—a document used to justify a decision that has already been made in a "quiet place."