Choose from a wide range of NEWCV resume templates and customize your NEWCV design with a single click.
Use ATS-optimised Resume and resume templates that pass applicant tracking systems. Our Resume builder helps recruiters read, scan, and shortlist your Resume faster.
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create Resume
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create ResumeA task based CV tells employers what you were supposed to do. A results based CV shows what happened because you did it well. That difference matters more than most candidates realise, especially in the UK job market where recruiters and hiring managers often skim applications quickly before deciding who deserves a closer look. If your CV is full of phrases like “responsible for”, “worked on”, “helped with” or “managed daily tasks”, it may look active but still feel weak. The problem is not that your experience is poor. The problem is that you are describing the job description instead of proving your value. A strong CV connects your work to outcomes, improvements, scale, quality, money, time, customers, risk, efficiency or performance. That is what makes a hiring manager stop and think, “This person has actually done the thing we need.”
A CV is too task based when it reads like a list of duties rather than evidence of contribution. It explains what sat within your role, but not what you changed, improved, delivered, solved or influenced.
This is one of the most common CV problems I see. The candidate often has good experience, but the CV makes them look average because every bullet sounds like a basic job requirement.
A task based CV usually says:
What you were responsible for
What systems you used
What meetings you attended
What processes you followed
What duties were part of your role
What teams you supported
A results based CV says:
Most candidates do not write task based CVs because they are lazy. They write them because they are trying to be accurate. They think, “I should explain what I did in the role.”
That makes sense, but it is only the first layer.
The issue is that employers are not only asking, “What did you do?” They are really asking:
Can you do this job well?
Have you solved problems similar to ours?
What level of responsibility have you actually handled?
Were you trusted with meaningful work?
Did your work make any difference?
Are you stronger than the other applicants?
A task based CV answers the weakest version of the question. A results based CV answers the real hiring question.
Here is the uncomfortable hiring reality. Many candidates applying for the same role will have similar responsibilities on paper. If five candidates all say they managed stakeholders, prepared reports, supported projects and handled customer queries, the recruiter still has no clear reason to prioritise one over the others.
What you improved
What you delivered
What changed because of your work
What problems you solved
What scale you worked at
What commercial or operational value you created
What decisions, processes or outcomes you influenced
The difference is not cosmetic. It changes how your experience is interpreted.
When a recruiter reads a task based CV, they often have to do the thinking for you. They have to ask, “Was this person good at the work, or were they just present while the work happened?” That is not where you want their brain to go.
A results based CV removes that doubt. It gives the reader evidence.
That is when the CV with better evidence wins.
Not necessarily the candidate with the most experience. Not always the candidate with the fanciest job title. Often, it is the candidate who explains their value most clearly.
Recruiters do not read CVs like novels. They scan for relevance, risk and evidence.
That does not mean they do not care. It means they are filtering quickly because they usually have too many applications and too little time. A recruiter is trying to work out whether your experience matches the role closely enough to justify moving you forward.
When I read a CV, I am not impressed by long lists of tasks. I am looking for signals.
I am looking for:
Scope of responsibility
Level of ownership
Business impact
Relevance to the vacancy
Complexity of work
Evidence of progression
Quality of achievements
Specific tools, systems or environments
Commercial or operational awareness
Whether the candidate understands their own value
That last point is important. A CV often shows me how well a candidate understands the job they do. Strong candidates can usually explain not just what they did, but why it mattered.
A weak CV makes the reader work too hard. It forces them to guess the impact.
A strong CV makes the value obvious without sounding inflated.
The easiest way to see the difference is to compare the same experience written in two ways.
Weak Example
This is not terrible, but it is flat. It tells me you had admin duties. It does not tell me whether you were organised, trusted, efficient or useful.
Good Example
This version gives scale, action and outcome. It tells me the person did more than sit near a shared inbox and hope for peace.
Weak Example
This is a task. It could belong to thousands of candidates.
Good Example
This shows judgement. It tells me the candidate was not just replying to messages. They were noticing patterns.
Weak Example
This sounds junior, vague and passive. “Helped with” is one of those phrases that quietly drains authority from a CV.
Good Example
This shows channel knowledge, contribution and purpose.
Weak Example
Again, this is a duty. It tells me what was expected, not what was achieved.
Good Example
This tells me the candidate improved communication and reduced risk.
Weak Example
This is too broad. It sounds like a job advert.
Good Example
This is stronger because it links account activity to commercial value.
Candidates often get stuck because they think a result has to be a dramatic achievement. It does not.
A result is not always “increased revenue by forty percent” or “saved the company £500,000”. Those are lovely when they are true, but most people do not have neat headline numbers for every role.
A result can be:
A process became faster
Errors reduced
Customers received better service
Managers had better information
A project stayed on track
Stakeholders were easier to manage
Compliance improved
Reporting became clearer
Workload became more manageable
A team avoided repeated mistakes
A system was used more effectively
A backlog was reduced
Communication improved
Candidate, client or customer experience improved
This matters because many UK candidates undersell themselves by thinking, “I do not have achievements.” Usually, they do. They are just looking for trophies instead of evidence.
A duty is what your job required.
A responsibility is what you owned.
A result is what changed because you did it well.
Your CV needs all three, but the result is what makes the point land.
“Responsible for” is not banned. It is just overused and often lazy.
The phrase tells me you were assigned something. It does not tell me whether you performed it well.
For example:
Weak Example
That could mean anything. Did you send them a form? Did you build the onboarding process? Did you reduce confusion? Did you coordinate IT, contracts, training and manager communication? Did people actually start smoothly?
A better version would be:
Good Example
That is much stronger because it explains the work behind the responsibility.
Hiring managers notice this. They may not consciously say, “This CV is too task based.” But they feel it. The CV feels thin. It lacks proof. It sounds like the candidate has copied their job description and rearranged the furniture.
The best way to improve a task based CV is not to add random metrics everywhere. It is to ask better questions about your own work.
For each bullet, ask:
What was the purpose of this task?
Who benefited from it?
What problem did it solve?
What became faster, easier, clearer, safer or more accurate?
What was the scale of the work?
What would have gone wrong if this was not done properly?
Did I improve the process in any way?
Did I support a commercial, operational, customer or compliance outcome?
Can I add a number, volume, percentage, frequency or context?
You are not trying to turn every bullet into a dramatic success story. You are trying to make the value clearer.
A useful structure is:
Action plus scope plus outcome
For example:
Weak Example
Good Example
Another useful structure is:
Problem plus action plus result
Weak Example
Good Example
You can also use:
Responsibility plus scale plus evidence
Weak Example
Good Example
This is not about making the CV sound dramatic. It is about making it useful.
Some candidates hear “results based CV” and immediately go too far in the other direction. Suddenly every bullet becomes inflated, shiny and suspicious.
That is not the goal.
A results based CV still needs to sound credible. Recruiters can usually spot when a bullet has been stretched beyond reality. If your CV says you “transformed operational performance” but your actual role was updating a tracker once a week, the gap will show in the interview.
The strongest CVs are specific, not theatrical.
Common mistakes include:
Adding vague claims without evidence
Using impressive words that do not match the role level
Claiming ownership for results that belonged to a whole department
Using percentages without context
Making every bullet sound like a major achievement
Forgetting the actual responsibilities of the role
Writing in a way that sounds nothing like the candidate can explain verbally
The interview test is simple. If you cannot comfortably explain the bullet in conversation, it needs rewriting.
A good CV should make you sound strong, not fictional.
This is where a lot of candidates freeze.
They think, “I cannot make my CV results based because I do not have metrics.”
You do not always need exact numbers. Numbers help, but they are not the only form of evidence.
You can use:
Team size
Customer volume
Project size
Budget exposure
Frequency of work
Number of stakeholders
Type of clients
Seniority of audience
Complexity of process
Speed of delivery
Quality improvement
Reduction in errors
Better visibility
Stronger compliance
Improved consistency
Reduced delays
Clearer communication
For example:
Weak Example
Good Example
No metric needed. Still stronger.
Another example:
Weak Example
Good Example
Again, there is no percentage, but there is value.
In UK hiring, especially for roles where outcomes are not always measured neatly, context can be just as useful as data.
There is a lot of nonsense talked about applicant tracking systems. Some advice makes it sound as if an ATS is a mythical gatekeeper that rejects your CV because the font looked at it funny.
The reality is more practical.
An applicant tracking system helps store, sort and search applications. Recruiters may search for keywords, job titles, skills, systems and qualifications. Some platforms offer ranking or matching features, but human screening still matters heavily, especially once your CV is opened.
A task based CV can still include keywords, but that does not mean it will persuade a human.
For example, your CV might include “stakeholder management”, “Excel”, “CRM”, “project coordination” and “reporting”. That may help with search visibility. But when the recruiter reads the bullet, they still need to see whether you used those skills in a meaningful way.
This is why keyword stuffing fails.
A better CV combines keyword relevance with evidence.
Weak Example
Good Example
The second version includes the same keyword value but gives the human reader a reason to care.
That is the balance candidates often miss. Your CV needs to be searchable, but it also needs to be believable and persuasive.
Hiring managers read CVs slightly differently from recruiters.
A recruiter often starts with role match. A hiring manager is usually thinking more directly about team problems.
They are asking:
Can this person reduce pressure on my team?
Will they need heavy supervision?
Have they handled similar work before?
Do they understand the environment?
Can they solve the problems we actually have?
Will they make my life easier or create more work?
That is why results based CV writing is so powerful. It helps the hiring manager imagine you in the job.
A task based bullet says:
Weak Example
A results based bullet says:
Good Example
The second version answers the hiring manager’s quiet concern: “Will this person mess up something important?”
This is the part candidates often underestimate. Employers are not just buying skills. They are reducing risk.
A results based CV makes you look like a lower risk, higher value hire.
When I review a CV, I mentally test each bullet against one question:
Does this tell me anything useful about why this person should be shortlisted?
If the answer is no, the bullet is either too vague, too basic or too disconnected from the target role.
Here is a practical way to review your own CV. Go through every bullet and ask whether it shows one of the following:
Relevance to the job you want next
A clear skill used in context
Ownership or accountability
A measurable or observable outcome
Scale or complexity
Commercial, operational or customer value
Improvement, problem solving or judgement
Evidence that you performed the work well
If a bullet does none of those things, it is probably just taking up space.
The most common issue I see is that candidates waste their strongest CV space on obvious tasks. For example, a finance assistant does not need to spend half the CV proving they process invoices. That is expected. The better question is whether they process them accurately, at volume, under deadlines, across multiple entities, while resolving discrepancies and improving communication.
That is where the value is.
To move from task based to results based, do not rewrite your whole CV randomly. Work through it with structure.
Start with your target role. A good CV is not just a record of everything you have ever done. It is a positioning document for the job you want next.
For each role, identify:
The work most relevant to your target job
The problems you helped solve
The systems, tools or processes you used
The scale of your work
The people or teams you supported
The outcomes you contributed to
The improvements you made
The responsibilities that show trust or progression
Then rewrite each bullet using this pattern:
What I did plus how I did it plus why it mattered
For example:
Weak Example
Good Example
This is stronger because it shows process, stakeholders and purpose.
Another example:
Weak Example
Good Example
This works because it explains the improvement clearly.
The best CV bullets often come from ordinary work explained properly. You do not need to sound like you single handedly saved the business before lunch. You need to show that you understood the work, handled it well and made a meaningful contribution.
A strong results based CV feels clear, specific and easy to trust.
It does not make the reader dig. It does not rely on buzzwords. It does not hide behind vague responsibilities. It shows the connection between action and value.
It usually has:
Clear role titles and dates
A concise professional profile focused on current positioning
Skills that match the target role
Bullet points that combine responsibility with impact
Specific systems, tools and environments where relevant
Evidence of ownership, improvement and outcomes
Enough detail to show credibility without turning into a life story
A weak CV often feels busy but strangely empty.
A strong CV feels selective. It gives the reader what they need to make a decision.
That is the real point of CV writing. You are not trying to document every task you have ever touched. You are trying to help the right employer understand why you are worth speaking to.
Not every task based detail is bad. Sometimes responsibilities need to be included because they confirm baseline experience.
For example, if a job requires payroll processing, safeguarding knowledge, diary management, month end reporting, CRM administration, stakeholder coordination or case handling, you do need to show you have done those things.
The problem is when your CV stops there.
A useful CV often combines both:
The task, so the reader sees relevant experience
The context, so the reader understands level and scope
The result, so the reader sees value
For example:
Good Example
This includes the task, but it does not leave the reader with only the task.
That is the balance. Do not remove responsibilities. Upgrade them.
In a competitive UK job market, many candidates meet the basic requirements. That means basic experience is rarely enough by itself.
For popular roles, employers may receive applications from candidates with similar job titles, similar tools, similar sectors and similar years of experience. The shortlist is often shaped by clarity. The candidate who explains their fit properly has an advantage.
This is especially true when:
You are applying for roles with high applicant volume
You are moving into a more senior position
You are changing sector
You have broad experience but no obvious specialism
Your job title does not fully explain your responsibilities
You are returning to work or repositioning your career
You are applying through LinkedIn, job boards or company portals
You need to pass both recruiter screening and hiring manager review
A results based CV helps bridge the gap between what you have done and what the employer needs to believe.
This is not about making your CV louder. It is about making it clearer.
Your CV is probably too task based if most bullets could be copied into a job description without changing much.
It is also too task based if you keep saying what you handled but not what improved, changed, moved forward or became easier because of your work.
A strong final check is to read each bullet and ask:
Does this prove value or just describe activity?
Would a hiring manager understand why this matters?
Is there any evidence of scale, quality, outcome or impact?
Could another candidate in the same role write the exact same thing?
Does this support the job I want next?
If the answer is uncomfortable, good. That is where the rewrite starts.
The best CVs are not always the longest or the most polished. They are the ones that make the candidate’s value easy to understand.
A task based CV says, “I had this job.”
A results based CV says, “Here is what I contributed, and here is why it matters.”
That is the version employers are more likely to trust.
Written by Simar Malhi, a recruiter and headhunter with international recruitment experience. I write about CVs, job applications, hiring decisions, and the reality behind recruitment processes. My goal is to help candidates understand more honestly how employers, recruiters, and hiring managers actually select candidates.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin