Latest / The Resume Room with Fexingo: Resume Writing, Cover Letters, and Application Strategy / How to Explain a Job With Multiple Titles on Your Resume
Transcript
- Lucas: So, Luna, here's a question we get all the time, and I think it's the perfect one for our one hundred fiftieth episode. You've been at the same company for four years, but your title has changed three times. Not because you got promoted, but because the company kept reorganizing. How do you put that on a resume without it looking like you're a job hopper or that you can't hold a title? Luna: Oh, that's a good one. I've seen so many people freeze up over this. They either list every single title in a long, clunky block, or they just pick the most recent one and pretend the others didn't happen. Lucas: Right. And both of those are mistakes, but they're understandable mistakes because nobody teaches you this. So let's actually pull apart a real example. I was working with someone last month, actually a former bank teller, and she had this exact problem. She started as a teller, then her bank rebranded and she became a 'universal banker', and then six months later they changed it again to 'customer experience associate'. Three titles, same desk, same customers, same actual work. Luna: That's the classic. And what did you tell her to do? Lucas: First thing, I told her to forget the official titles for a second. Write down what she actually did across that whole period. Because when you look at it that way, it usually turns out that the work itself was stable. She was opening accounts, handling transactions, resolving customer issues, maybe helping with loan applications later on. The titles were just the bank's way of shuffling the org chart. Luna: So the solution is to use one title that covers the whole stretch? But which one? The most senior one? The most generic one? Lucas: That's the trick. If there was a genuine change in responsibility somewhere along the way, you split the job into two entries. But if the duties stayed essentially the same, you merge them. You list the most recent title, put a date range that covers the whole period, and then you can add a little clarification in the bullet points, something like 'held successively as teller, universal banker, and customer experience associate, with consistent accountabilities in client service and transaction processing'. Luna: Oh, I like that. It's honest, it shows you weren't trying to hide anything, and it saves a recruiter from reading three nearly identical job descriptions. Lucas: Exactly. Recruiters spend about seven seconds on a first pass. If they see three separate jobs at the same bank over four years, their brain goes 'job hopper' before they even read the details. Merging it into one entry with that parenthetical removes the red flag instantly. Luna: And what if the responsibilities actually did change? Like, you started as an analyst, then you became a lead analyst, and then a manager. That's a real promotion path, but the titles still changed multiple times. Same approach? Lucas: No, that's different. If the title changes came with a real step up in scope, you keep them as separate entries. You want to show the progression. The problem we're solving today is when the title changes are cosmetic. The work stays the same, the pay stays the same, the title just gets rebranded. That's when the merge and clarify approach works best. Luna: Okay, so what about the reverse? Someone who is tempted to invent a title that sounds better than the official one. Like a 'janitor' who wants to call themselves a 'facilities manager'. Lucas: You can do that, but you have to be careful. There's a legitimate technique called a functional title. You're allowed to use a title that describes what you actually do, even if it's not your official HR title. The key is that it has to be a true and accurate description of your duties. So a janitor who cleans and maintains a building could honestly use 'building maintenance technician'. That's not a lie. But if you invent a title that implies responsibilities you never had, that's a lie, and it'll come back to bite you in a background check. Luna: So the rule is: the functional title must match the real job duties. You can't just upgrade 'cashier' to 'customer service manager' if you never managed anyone. Lucas: Right. And here's a practical tip: when you use a functional title, you can put your official title in parentheses underneath. So you write 'Building Maintenance Technician '. That way you're being transparent, and the recruiter sees the real title anyway. But you've framed it in a way that highlights the actual skill set you bring. Luna: That's really useful. I've also seen people panic about the reverse: they had a fancy title, like 'director of first impressions', which is really just a receptionist. Are they allowed to use the simpler, more accurate title? Lucas: Absolutely. You can always downgrade an official title to a more standard one. In fact, that's often smart. If you're applying for a job that's a step up, and your current title is 'director of first impressions', the recruiter might not know what that is. But if you write 'Receptionist' then in parentheses say 'officially, director of first impressions', you're instantly clear. The reader knows what you actually did, and they're not distracted by some made-up title. Luna: So it works both ways. You can upgrade if it's accurate, you can downgrade if it's more standard, and you can merge when titles are just cosmetic changes. Lucas: Exactly. And the key in every case is that you're in control of the narrative. You're not lying, you're not hiding, you're just presenting your work history in the clearest, most scannable way for a busy recruiter. It reminds me of something I read from a headhunter once: 'Your resume is a marketing document, not a biography.' It's not about listing every official title in order. It's about telling the story of what you can do. Luna: That's a great line. And it's especially true when the company itself created the mess. We shouldn't be penalized for their reorganizations. Lucas: No, you shouldn't. And actually, this kind of approach also helps with cover letters. If you're applying for a job and you know the recruiter will see a messy title history, you can address it head-on in the first paragraph. Something like 'Over four years at X Bank, I held three titles as the company refined its customer service model, and through all of it, my core responsibility was helping clients navigate their finances.' That turns a potential weakness into evidence of resilience. Luna: I like that. It shows you're not ashamed of the changes, and you've got a good reason for them. That goes a long way. Lucas: Okay, let's switch gears for a second. And here's something that's been on my mind. We've been doing this show for over three hundred episodes, and we've never run a single ad. We keep it that way on purpose, because we want these episodes to be purely useful, with no sponsor telling you to buy something. But that also means the show relies on listeners who find value in it and want to support it. Luna: Yeah, and it's a small thing, but it makes a big difference. If you've ever thought about showing support, you can do it at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's the only way we keep the show ad-free. Lucas: Right. And we don't offer any perks or shout-outs, because that would sort of defeat the purpose. It's just about keeping the episodes clean and focused. But if you've gotten a job or a promotion and you think the show had a small part in that, that's the kind of support that keeps us going. Luna: Absolutely. And now, back to our titles problem. We've talked about merging, we've talked about functional titles. But what about the reverse situation where someone has a long history of different titles and they're worried it looks like they can't commit? Lucas: That's a slightly different beast, because there the issue isn't just about titles, it's about job changes. But the same principle applies. You want to show that you've been building a coherent skill set, even if the titles have changed. So maybe you group them by function, like 'Customer-Facing Roles' or 'Operations Roles', and then list the titles and companies underneath. That can work really well for someone who has moved around a lot but always in the same kind of work. Luna: I've seen that format. It's a bit controversial, though. Some recruiters hate it because they can't easily see the timeline. How do you decide when to use it? Lucas: That's the key. Before you use a functional or grouped format, you need to be honest with yourself: are you hiding something? If you're hiding a pattern of short stints because you got fired three times, then you're using a functional format to obfuscate, and that's going to backfire. But if you genuinely have a coherent story, like 'I've worked in customer success across three different industries', then grouping can help the recruiter see the forest instead of getting lost in the trees. Luna: So it's about intent. Are you clarifying, or are you hiding? Lucas: Exactly. And recruiters are trained to spot the difference. So if you're going to use a functional format, you have to be ready to explain it in an interview. But honestly, for most people, the chronological format with a few well-placed merges is the safer bet. It's what recruiters expect to see, and it's the easiest for them to verify. Luna: Right. And speaking of verification, a lot of online applications force you to list each title separately. You can't merge them into one line. What do you do then? Lucas: That's a great point. In that case, you list the positions separately, but you can still control the narrative. Use the functional title as the job title in the system, and put the official title in the description. So for our bank teller example, she could list one entry as 'Customer Experience Associate' with a date range of 2022 to 2026, and then in the description say 'Titles held: Teller, Universal Banker, Customer Experience Associate.' That way the system sees one job, but you're being fully transparent. Luna: Oh, that's clever. It keeps the online form clean and avoids the three-similar-jobs issue. And I guess it works the same way on LinkedIn, right? You can merge your titles there too. Lucas: LinkedIn is actually a bit stricter because you have to list specific roles with dates. But you can still merge them by listing the most recent title and then adding a note in the description. Or you can just list them all separately, because LinkedIn is a little more forgiving about showing a long history. The key is to make sure your resume, your LinkedIn, and your cover letter all tell the same story. Inconsistency is a huge red flag. Luna: So consistency across all your materials. That's a great final takeaway. Anything else on this topic? Lucas: One last thought. If you're mid-career and you have a really messy title history, it might be worth investing in a professional resume writer who specializes in your field. They see this stuff every day, and they know how to frame it. But if you're doing it yourself, just remember the three tools we talked about: merge when the duties are the same, use a functional title when it's accurate, and always be ready to explain your choices in an interview. The resume isn't a legal document, it's a marketing tool. Use it that way. Luna: That's a perfect note to end on. And hey, if you're listening and you've ever had to explain a weird title on your resume, we'd love to hear your story. You can find us on social media, and who knows, maybe we'll feature it in a future episode. Lucas: Absolutely. Until next time, keep your resume honest, but keep it interesting.