In a resume, is it more important to have a complete chronology (no gaps in dates) or only relevant past jobs?

Answer 1

I look for the complete history. Even the non-relevant jobs are interesting to me because it gives me a better idea of the applicant's background, their broader skills and abilities, and their willingness to do something different if needed.
And I like to see some details. I've heard some advise it's best to keep a resume to one page but I usually don't even consider the one-pagers. I want to know as much about you as I can before I call you. If the applicant is not willing to give me some good info up front then I move on to the next resume. And use some buzz words. There are automated programs that review resumes looking for appropriate buzz words. If there are no buzz words the resumes get "filed". The company I work for doesn't use one of those programs but still, I want to know if you know the lingo.
And don't offer too much personal info like age, hobbies, health, allergies, that sort of thing. Keep it professional and focus on why YOU are the only one who can do this job.

Answer 2

I think it is best to only show relevant experience, and education on the first page. Use page two to have chronological work experience and other info.

Answer 3

Use your complete work history. I, too, get suspicious of gaps in an applicants history. I start thinking there might have been problems at a previous job and they chose not to list it to avoid inquiries. Besides, experience you gain in one industry can still be applied to your new job in another.

Answer 4

Both.
Relevant past jobs without chronology = bad
Questiones like "What happen between here and here?"
(looking at the dates)
Doubts about your attitude are sure to raise when you have unclear information about it.
And if you have to lie your way about it......make sure you do it good!

Answer 5

Complete history. I usually become far more suspicious of applicants that have gaps. (i.e. where were they? Jail?)