At least you got the CHANCE to explain before. Now you can't even do that because your resume is not passing the screen.
You're handicapping yourself with the lack of transparency. It just comes across as shady. Why are you worth the risk compared to the overflow of excellent candidates in this market?
You need to suck it up and share this information. Briefly explain each situation on the resume (i.e. "fixed contract ended" or "startup shut down due to loss of largest customer").
It's not shady at all. And there's a lot of things that describe me, but untransparent is not one of them. In fact, my transparency often gets me into trouble, in a sense, because people are not used to it and it seemingly weirds them out.
> Briefly explain each situation on the resume (i.e. "fixed contract ended" or "startup shut down due to loss of largest customer").
There's not room, and it's ultimately irrelevant to my experience and skills.
> Why are you worth the risk compared to the overflow of excellent candidates in this market?
Because your resume is better?
You really saving time by filtering those to whom it's important. Those who contact you would mind less about those missing months.
Yes, when you need every possible contact, you might be interested to approach things differently, but the question isn't how to match best the screening algorithms. And it's very sad thing to have to explain those months.
I can't speak to his skills - but in the eyes of a Hiring Manager reviewing his resume, it's worse than the majority. There is too much great laid-off talent out there.
You're handicapping yourself with the lack of transparency. It just comes across as shady. Why are you worth the risk compared to the overflow of excellent candidates in this market?
You need to suck it up and share this information. Briefly explain each situation on the resume (i.e. "fixed contract ended" or "startup shut down due to loss of largest customer").
Edit: spelling.