> If you’ve worked more than 4 jobs in the last 4 years, you’re in the danger zone. Many companies will discard a CV quickly if we don’t think you’ll stick around until next year.
I mostly agree, but I think 2 jobs in 4 years? Probably fine. There's a line, and I don't think it's very clear cut.
Personally, I wish we could stop judging individuals without understanding the context. There may be a million different reasons for someone that needs frequent job changes in a four year periods. Asking good questions to candidates will be far more informative and useful to the business than having a set of rules for dismissal or judgement.
Furthermore, the company is rarely/never accountable for swiftly laying people off individuals that may otherwise be excellent workers.
Frankly, if a company is discarding CVs based on perceived loyalty, then I perhaps those same companies to provide candidates with a contract reciprocates that loyalty via generous raises and job security.
> I wish we could stop judging individuals without understanding the context. There may be a million different reasons... Asking good questions to candidates will be far more informative
You won't even get to the "good questions" phase (i.e., get past the screening) if your resume is full of <1 year stints.
> Furthermore, the company is rarely/never accountable for swiftly laying people off individuals that may otherwise be excellent workers.
I've seen tons of resumes where people have done 12 companies in 10 years. think it's unlikely that was due to constant layoffs.
> Frankly, if a company is discarding CVs based on perceived loyalty, then I perhaps those same companies to provide candidates with a contract reciprocates that loyalty via generous raises and job security.
It's not about a noble ideal of loyalty. A person who leaves companies in 9-12 months is unlikely to have anything significant done in years (due to ramp-up time, etc). Not worth the risk to bring them onto your team, knowing their pattern is to be gone soon.
> I wish we could stop judging individuals without understanding the context
"judging individuals without (enough) context" is basically what resume screening is, sadly. There may be 10 resumes that are otherwise equally strong, but one has this "issue". Then that issue might cost the opportunity to give more context. That's just how screening works.
It's useful as a Bayesian prior. Repeated past behavior is a reasonable predictor for future behavior. There may be context that explains it, but hiring is really expensive and you want to get someone who will stick more than a year.
Leave a job per year for 4 years is at least a yellow flag to me.
I agree. Any given shortish stint can be for one of a million reasons. Two can just be luck of the draw especially in startup world. But at some point, things become patterns and, unless you're OK with the pattern, it's probably foolish to think that things will be different this time.
I know this is true but it stings to see this as someone who has unfortunately done a lot of job hopping. It all "made sense" at the time, and looking back I wonder what I should have done differently, but at this point I really don't want to job hop anymore. This is how I explain my story to hiring managers:
* Startup ABC: 3 years -> Quit for a job that allowed me to break into a niche.
* Company BigCo: 9 Months -> Got asked to return to ABC as a leader, related to niche. "Great opportunity", didn't have a record of job hopping at the time, took it!
* Startup ABC: (Another) 3 years -> Got tired of the grind and quit for a job at Startup XYZ. Seemed reasonable at the time.
* Startup XYZ: 3 Months -> Toxic work environment, quit for mental health reasons. Requires the most explaining, but I felt totally justified and have since been vindicated by semi-public info about the org.
* Company HugeCo: 6 Months -> Got an offer from Meta that represented a 2x increase in comp (plus prestige of Big Tech). Hard to say no.
* Meta: 1 year -> Saw the writing on the wall my team was going to get crushed in layoffs and opportunistically jumped while I could. Ended up being correct about my team's fate btw.
* Startup JKL -> Been here for 4 months with no plan of leaving.
So all in all, in the last 4 years I've had 4 jobs, the "danger zone" as the OP put it. I don't have any desire to change jobs again soon. How would you view my story? Would you see me as a serial job hopper? Someone who can't commit? Or someone who made a series of reasonable choices in isolation that resulted in a disjointed resume? Most of this took place between 2019-2022 when the job market was on fire, and I don't necessarily regret it (after all, my salary tripled during this time). But I know how it looks.
I hopped jobs four times in four years between 1995 and 1999. Believe me, back then it really made sense (man, I miss the 90's). Although I've stayed everywhere I've worked since for at least three years (average five), this still comes up as a negative when I interview.
Whilst nice and settled now, I've had a pretty patchy history largely as a function of the sector I used to work in.
That said, doing recruiting, I tend to look at the longest stretch. If someone's not chalked up 1.5ish years in one organisation that's definitely a flag.
Definitely agree that the line is blurry. 2 in 4 years is fine, especially in 2023 when the most recent short stint can be explained by widespread layoffs
I mostly agree, but I think 2 jobs in 4 years? Probably fine. There's a line, and I don't think it's very clear cut.