Why generic bullet points do not work
"Excellent communicator with strong analytical skills and a track record of delivering results." This sentence has appeared on millions of CVs. It contains no information a recruiter can evaluate. Every candidate believes they communicate well; few provide evidence of it.
Generic bullets are not just unhelpful — they actively signal to experienced recruiters that you are uncertain about your own experience and are filling space with borrowed language. A recruiter reading fifty CVs in an afternoon develops a fast pattern-recognition for generic content and moves past it quickly.
The alternative is not to invent impressive achievements. It is to describe the real work specifically, in a way that makes your actual contribution legible.
The structure of a useful bullet point
A clear CV bullet has three components:
-
An action verb that is specific to what you did. Not "worked on" or "was involved in" — those are participation verbs that describe presence rather than contribution. Use verbs that describe the actual action: led, built, designed, coordinated, managed, delivered, negotiated, analysed, restructured, implemented, reduced, increased, resolved.
-
A specific context. What was the scale, the scope, the constraint? A team of three versus a team of thirty is relevant context. A project with a fixed external deadline is different from an internal process improvement. The context makes the achievement interpretable.
-
An outcome or impact. What changed as a result? Where you have a measurable outcome, use it. Where you do not, describe the observable result: the project delivered, the process was adopted, the client renewed, the dispute resolved.
This structure does not require every bullet to have a percentage attached. It requires every bullet to describe something real and specific.
Worked examples: before and after
| Generic version | Specific version | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| Responsible for managing projects | Managed delivery of a four-month software integration project across two vendor teams, co-ordinating weekly status reviews and escalating blockers to the steering committee | Scale, responsibility, and method are now visible |
| Improved team processes | Redesigned the team's weekly reporting workflow, reducing preparation time from three hours to forty-five minutes by consolidating data sources into a shared dashboard | The problem, the action, and the measurable outcome are all present |
| Worked with stakeholders across the business | Co-ordinated input from finance, operations, and compliance to produce monthly board pack for the CEO and two NEDs — managing conflicting deadlines across five contributors | Specific stakeholders, specific output, honest description of complexity |
| Strong customer service skills | Handled inbound customer queries for a subscription product, managing an average of forty contacts per day and resolving escalations within two business days | Volume and standard are specific; can be probed in interview with real answers |
| Contributed to sales growth | Supported the account management team with renewal proposals and client presentations; our team renewed 14 of 17 enterprise accounts in the year I was involved | Honest about the team context; the supporting role and the outcome are both stated accurately |
When you do not have a measurable outcome
Not every piece of work has a clean metric attached to it. Policy work, relationship management, research, and many operational roles produce outputs rather than metrics. This is fine. A specific description of the actual work — what you did, at what scale, under what constraints — is more useful than an invented percentage.
"Drafted the department's annual risk assessment for three consecutive years, co-ordinating input from twelve function heads and presenting findings to the board audit committee" is a specific, evidenced description of real work. It does not need a number attached to be credible.
What makes it useful to a recruiter is specificity — it tells them what the work involved, the scope, the audience, and the regularity. Those things are evaluable without a metric.
The honesty line
The most important constraint in CV writing is accuracy. This is not just an ethical point — it is a practical one.
Interviewers ask probing questions about specific bullet points. "Tell me more about when you led that team" or "What was the methodology behind that analysis?" are normal interview questions. Experience that is exaggerated or invented collapses under this scrutiny at the moment when it most damages your candidacy.
The question to ask about each bullet is: could I speak about this for five minutes in an interview and answer follow-up questions accurately? If yes, the bullet is honest. If no, edit it until it is.
Describing contribution accurately matters: If you were part of a team that delivered a result, say so. "Contributed to," "as part of a team of eight, delivered," or "supported the lead engineer in" are accurate descriptors. Overclaiming solo ownership of team work is easily checked in an interview — the genuine contributor can describe specifics that a peripheral participant cannot.
Bullet points for roles with limited quantifiable impact
Support and administrative roles
Administrative and support roles often have high-volume, process-driven work that feels hard to present as achievements. The approach is the same: be specific about the scale and what the work enabled. "Managed travel and expense processing for a team of twenty-two, including monthly reconciliation and policy compliance checks" is specific and honest. It tells a recruiter what the scope was, what the process involved, and implies a level of organisation and attention to detail without claiming it in abstract.
Early career and graduate roles
If you have limited paid work history, the evidence structure still applies — to placements, projects, society roles, or part-time work. "Conducted primary research for a final-year dissertation on UK housing policy, interviewing twelve local authority planners and analysing planning application data from three councils" is evidenced, specific, and honest whether it was paid work or not.
Long tenures with gradual progression
For roles held for several years, the temptation is to list every responsibility. Edit instead: lead with the most relevant work for the target role, group related responsibilities into a single specific bullet, and cut generic description of routine that adds no information.
See what your current CV is demonstrating
Wallbreak's CV analysis surfaces where evidence is clear, where it is thin, and where specific skills or achievements are not coming through — so you know what to strengthen before you tailor for a role.
Analyse my CV Search UK jobsFrequently asked questions
What is the best structure for a CV bullet point in the UK?
Action verb + specific context + outcome or impact. The action verb describes what you did (not just that you were present). The context gives the scale and scope. The outcome describes what changed or was delivered. Not every bullet needs a metric — a specific description of real work is more useful than a fabricated percentage.
Should I include numbers and percentages in CV bullets?
Use numbers where they accurately reflect your contribution. Invented or exaggerated numbers are counterproductive — interviewers probe specific achievements, and figures that cannot be substantiated damage your credibility at the most important moment. Where you do not have a specific number, a specific description of the work is more useful than a fabricated figure.
What should I do if my role was purely routine with no clear achievements?
Most roles have substance beyond a job description. Think about scale (volume, frequency, value), judgement required, problems resolved, and process improvements made. Routine work done well, at scale, with consistency is a legitimate description. Describe the actual work specifically rather than falling back on generic competency claims.
How do I describe skills I used but did not lead independently?
Be accurate about the nature of your contribution. "Contributed to," "supported," "assisted with," and "worked within a team to" are honest descriptors that convey involvement without overclaiming. Describing a supporting role accurately is more credible and safer in interview than claiming full ownership of work you were part of.