Another way to frame things is:

- Where We Were - Where We Needed To Go - How We Got There

A variation on this:

Visualize being on one side of a chasm. Describe this side of the chasm, emphasizing the bad stuff. Describe why we want to go to the other side, emphasizing the good stuff. Describe the chasm, emphasizing how deep, wide, and impassible it is.

Now describe the bridge you built, your role in building it, challenges you faced, &c. But always start with describing both sides and the chasm. You can use any format you like for describing the bridge and your role in building it, the important thing is that the reader has the chasm firmly fixed in their midn while reading about your accomplishment.

So what if you were part of a failed startup? You did your job, and did your job pretty well, but the actual products failed to find its audience due to factors (mostly) outside of your control, since you weren't making the decisions on what to make or how to market it?

How do you use STAR to not make that sound bad? I think I currently say I delivered the projects on time and on budget and talk about what I was responsible for, and I know I personally gained a lot of experience from the projects, but every time I see STAR suggested, I'm like "Well, if I did that, I'd basically have to say that my work resulted in the company losing money and ultimately folding."

I get plenty of attention for my resume as it is, it just always bugged me when people suggest STAR as if it's the only way to write a job description on a resume.

Situation:

When I replaced the VP of Engineering at BloatCo, it had 4,000 engineers, producing a mediocre social media product that was roundly criticized for such failures as being unable to edit posts and having no control over online harassment.

Task:

Cut costs and get the product and feature pipeline flowing.

Action:

Implemented a thorough review of functional teams, engaging both front-line management and customer representatives to distinguish the individual and practices that were delivering value from those who weren’t.

Established a customer council, including social activist and freedom of speech advocates, to advise on anti-harassment policies.

Result:

After a painful transition lasting two quarters, we are reviving public kudos on new features and our reputation as a tool for scumbags has been turned around.

Our burn rate is down by 40% in engineering, proving that sometimes, you can cut costs and increase production.

post scriptum:

Alas, this did not increase any advertising revenue, so the company was sold to Yahoo, who fired me and are rewriting everything in Perl 6. But fixing those problems were outside of the scope of my authority.

Very amusing and informative. I think I can incorporate some of this in my resume in the future, thanks. Also it should help me organize my thoughts for job interviews.

the result is your learning, if you see no results from failures then you're not a very good employee.

but ok, stick with "i was responsible for a failed product"

Yeah, I don't say I was responsible for a failed product, and yes of course I learned a ton and saw it as a valuable experience regardless.

But as far as I know, most employers don't care too much to see something like "I didn't really help the business make money, but I learned a lot while I was there!"

So instead it's more like "Lead team of X people in the development of {{productName}} using {{technology}} for {{platform}} on time and on budget."

Which is fine, but it doesn't seem to really fit in with STAR so well, especially the "R = Result" part.

but that's a star - on time & on budget are results. still better than just "lead team X"