A combative CV may floor potential employers — but not in a good way, writes Jim Bright.

Have you ever seen a television advertisement that alienates you from the first scene? The look, feel and content just make you want to change channels. I am sad to say that a CV and cover letter sent to me for comment this week had precisely that effect — and for the same reasons.

Bryan's CV and cover letter frustrated me at almost every turn because he clearly has plenty to offer an employer. He is well qualified and has some impressive achievements but it all seems to have been handed to a marketing company to package in a manner that is exquisitely wrong-headed in every respect.

The cover letter begins, "Without Prejudice Strictly Private and Confidential". What the ...?!!

I think this means (if it means anything beyond pomposity) the contents can't be used in any subsequent legal proceedings and the recipient can't share the information with others.

The applicant's first contact therefore suggests they envisage a future legal dispute with the recruiter, who is also instructed not to pass the application on to colleagues, who may or may not be included on an interview panel. If I interpreted this incorrectly, there is every chance that others will too.

The letter's opening paragraph is actually a short opinion piece. It begins: "In the real world, problems are not neat, they are messy." It continues with the incomprehensible, "a major issue arises when issues confront a specialist ...". Issues causing an issue; who would have thought? My sarcasm is a reflection of the irritation I felt in reading this.

Bryan has decided to take an aggressive marketing-style approach to his application by trying to set out a problem or gap an employer might be facing that he will argue he can fill.

Such an approach risks being seen as presumptuous and is chock full of opinions and sweeping statements that just beg to be shot down. And this is the problem.

Bryan has taken a combative/argumentative approach to applying for jobs. While some might welcome this, I suspect many will find it distasteful.

The CV is not an improvement. A two-page affair with a double-lined border (why?), it repeats the "write my own job ad" marketing-style copy.

Bryan confers upon himself qualifications that he is yet to attain, supposedly qualifying the claims by adding "(stu)" for student. Given the pedantically legal tone of the document, this is an error because, to be equally pedantic, one has no right to letters after the name until the degree has been conferred.

The CV begins to tell a story of a person with significant technical experience who is working towards a legal qualification. However, the work history is poorly presented, with the common mistake of conflating responsibilities and achievements: saying what he did but failing to say how well he did it.

Nor does Bryan's CV clearly show how he combines technical, legal and accounting expertise as promised in his cover letter.

Given the problems with this application, it seems trivial by comparison to point out that some of it is presented in eight point and can therefore only be read by a child with a floodlight and magnifying glass. Maybe Bryan is trying to demonstrate a familiarity with the legal tactic of small print.

He does appear to have some strong or developing skills in two technical areas (the claims to the accounting skills are not convincing).

However, the truly employable specialist needs advanced skills in one further area: communication. This is what Bryan needs to focus on in a re-write.

Jim Bright is professor of career education and development at ACU and a partner at Bright and Associates, a career management consultancy. Send emails clearly marked "For publication" to brightside@jimbright.com.

For more workplace advice, see mycareer.com.au/advice.