The damning question recruiters ask
The scariest question recruiters ask is, “How long have you been with your current (or previous) employer?”
Many people believe the job search myth that it is acceptable, even expected, to change jobs every two years. Or that the current downturn in the economy somehow forgives the resume that indicates short stints at recent jobs.
The fact of the matter is, most recruiters (and hiring authorities) won’t even consider a candidate with a pattern of very short tenure. Their clients don’t want to hire them and recruiters do what they are asked. And lately, according to the Wall Street Journal, some employers insist recruiters only interview those currently employed. They won’t waste time interviewing you because they know they can’t place you. No amount of cajolery or conniving can change this outcome.
Even when there are, what you believe to be, perfectly good reasons for your brief stays, prospective employers still don’t want to consider you because they assume you make bad decisions or decisions made without research. Or worse, they cling to the belief that in times of a layoff, only the best are retained. Net: employers and recruiters consider only candidates with a solid track record.
Does this mean you won’t be considered for the best jobs if you have a few short stints? That depends on the whole picture; if you had seven years at one company and only 18 months at another, there is a certain balance. Your next job must be a keeper to cancel out the 18 month job.
Excellent performers tend to stay in their jobs three to five years. They live with the results of decisions they make and they learn from their mistakes. They implement course corrections, bring in new resources and in general, learn how to survive. And that’s why they are valued by prospective employers. People with short tenures are not seen as people who have that very core experience. Your time in service is a vital part of your appeal to a future employer regardless of the good reasons you lack that golden credential.
What’s a candidate to do? If resumes reflect jobs with companies that were acquired, moved, closed or downsized they are still viewed as a job hopper’s history. You want a job and you have credentials valuable to employers. Get to know prospective hiring authorities outside the hiring venue.
Volunteer, go to events where they may be found. Amp up your networking to include the country club and distance biking groups. Anything that exposes you to prospective champions and hiring authorities who can get past your tenure issue because they now know you. Your networking efforts have never been so important. [For ideas on networking scroll down to view the Sneak Peek section of the Products page.)
Don’t let this happen again. Do what you can to make your next job a keeper. Forego what you have to in order to land a job where you know you can be successful and the company will probably be around in five years. Consider your next job in terms of building your career, not just landing a job. And if you want to prevent your recent short tenure from becoming a job search issue, learn to manage your career through personal branding.
It behooves any candidate to vet the company and their manager carefully before accepting any job. Use glassdoor.com and other corporate sites to learn what you can about the company, the management and their market.
Hoovers.com or Vault.com and search engines like Google and Yahoo! all prove valuable when researching companies online. Other research tools are magazines, periodicals and other publications such as Fortune, Forbes, Black Enterprise, BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal, Jungle Media, Hispanic Business, Working Mother, to name a few.
Through best-of and worst-of lists and other featured articles, these publications provide current research on companies. If you are a LGBT candidate, use sites like Outandequal.com to learn about companies with a good track record in human rights.
Consider your longevity with an employer an investment in your career. People with who stay five years always trump those with that mythologically acceptable two year history. You have to love those odds.
Because I posted a link to this post on LinkedIn, I received more than a few comments saying it just isn’t fair and how dare I suggest people need to stay in jobs more than 3 years. I am not proposing indentured servitude; I suggest vetting a company so you can be successful and want to stay in order to repair the damage on your resume.
This isn’t so much advice as it is a report on reality. I don’t make the rules. I do help folks work around them. This economic climate can mean many people have a short tenure somewhere, but if it isn’t a pattern, it is not an issue. And that’s the point. Employer’s look for patterns and have a model in mind when they hire.
If there have been long stints where the deliverable is traceable to the candidate, the point is moot. I have four senior executive clients at the moment. Two have been with their employer 5+ years. Jobs come to them. Recruiters and corporations contact them weekly. My job is to help them put their best foot forward, evaluate opportunities and negotiate their best deal.
The other two have less than 3 years in their last four jobs, all for perfectly good reasons. They network ferociously to get interviews and recruiters don’t treat them well. The only companies interested in serious courtship tend to be second tier companies with second tier compensation. My job is to help them with networking and messaging; marketing themselves and creating a solid personal brand.
I don’t make this stuff up. While we can certainly accuse and berate those employers who expect a resume to show tenure, such dialog does nothing to change the reality. And we can’t hold recruiters accountable for this issue. They are paid to execute on their client’s wishes.
Employers can and do get new employees, especially executives, with a visible track record. That is their insurance against failure. Or so they believe.
Branding, career advice, networking, recruiters, resume, Uncategorized
| 
career advice, executive jobs, job hopping, job tenure, networking, recruiters, resume, Rita Ashley, work with recruiters
Themocracy
[...] to find a new job that fits career goals and where they can stay for more than four years, an increasingly important variable. . Once detached, the executive can then ask the hardest question of all. “Can I be [...]
[...] but the expectation has been set and the candidate has much to prove. If you have spent less than three years at the majority of your employers, your resume goes to the bottom of the [...]
Get hold of a job description for a job that would be a good fit for you. [It doesn't have to be an open position, you just need it for a guideline.] Then redo your resume based on the priorities listed. Use outcomes with metrics. Then network to get introductions to the hiring authorities.
The problem with advice is, there is too much of it. Always check the credentials of folks who advise you. Translating your skills is easy once you have the job description. It is a roadmap to what the employer needs to see from you and if you explain with outcomes, you are ahead of the competition. Best of luck to you.
Rita, can you address the construction industry. I’ve heard there is a 40% unemployment rate. Out of college I worked for top 200 companies and was trained on high profile projects. That enabled me to take that knowledge and start my own company. I survived 18 years as General Contractor. Now the door has slammed shut in my face with no private projects going on and Public Money requires bonding which has tightened it’s requirements similar to bank lending. At 52 I’m in the job market again along with the other 40%. I’ve considered transferable skills in Property Management, however that field doesn’t really want construction managers. Any insight would be appreciated.
I actually was told to not put employment dates on my jobs. That came back to hit me in the face with my last application. I told the manager that my resume highlights my skills with the various projects I’ve been on. The feedback I got was that employers want to see if you jump jobs. I’m back to putting the dates on my career. My hurdle is showing how my skills translate after being self employed for 18 years.
Kristen, Good to hear there is some variation within Microsoft. I love that there is no policy for all departments. Means there are more options for candidates.
GenY or not, most companies, especially those in the group that hires the most, the under 500 employees range, opt for stability every time.For the more senior roles, it is an absolute for many companies and top recruiters. This isn’t opinion, it is based on interviews with hiring authorities and investors across the range in high tech as well as careful review of recent hires in top positions.
Given the choice, employers, other than the few within Microsoft whom you represent, always hire those who have seen the results of their decisions and who have the tenure to prove they work collaboratively. That takes about three years, in general.
For candidates over 50, that tenure thing is a double edged sword; stay more than 9-10 years and the snake bites. In fact, I had a recent client who had 11 years with his current employer and among the first issues he had to handle when interviewing was could he adapt to a new environment. He was only 38. The answer was yes [with examples] and he is now the CEO of a highly visible company.
The spate of layoffs doesn’t equate with short tenure. Many people who are laid off had been with their former employer quite a while. It is the pattern employers consider, not one incident of short tenure. And contracting or consulting on your resume is viewed variously by each employer so it is not a real factor.
Actually, that is not quite as accurate as it was in years gone by, for two reasons. One is that hiring managers realize the economy is forcing professionals to perhaps take a contract or become a consultant, which can translate less favorably. If we are talking executive level, it is a game of supply/demand. The higher up the food chain an executive is, the fewer jobs there will be.(I addressed this in my column on NWJobs a few weeks ago:http://blog.nwjobs.com/careercenter/how_to_get_an_executive_job_when_youve_got_the_experience_but_not_the_title.html
The second has to do with the age of our workforce. GenY is starting to hit the workforce and attain “Senior” titles. And if you know anything about GenY, you should know that they are not known for their stability. In fact, I have one hiring manager that *wants* movement on a resume, because in his industry and geographic location, that is how it is done with top talent.
The top jobs will always go to those who have a record of long tenure. It is believed that even when layoffs occur, they best people are retained and when companies close, the best are recruited quickly and have no gap in service.
In general, however, a strong resume can endure a few short bursts, but not many. Sad reality, but employers are good at pattern recognition.
This has always been a touchy question/subject and the importance of the answer ebbs and flows. That’s a good thing now for execs that find themselves looking for their 3 position in 3 years. Employers are much more sympathetic given today’s economic climate than a few years back. This will change though as the economy smooths out.
Perceptions will change with the economy so capitalize now while you have the benefit of the doubt.
[...] Is this a company where the challenges and culture are sufficient for a tenure of at least four years? [...]
[...] Today, I received a request for information by a reporter doing a piece on job hopping. His premise, all too familiar, is that the current economy = job hopping. [...]
Executives who are pursued for jobs need coaching to create the most compelling interviews and etc. possible. Just because they are pursued doesn’t mean they don’t have competition. They need the same help with messaging, negotiation and interview success anyone else does. It is a different approach, but coaching is completely customized. One client is a GM in search of a CEO spot. He needs support for this in order to cross the finish line.
Many of my clients are over 50, but just as many are successful executives in their 30′s. Age has nothing to do with the issues.
The best way to make sure you have the right credentials is to chose your next opportunity well; one where you can be successful and recognized. Then you too can have long tenure and be courted. Candidates who lie typically get caught at some point. And they are fired immediately. Executives who lie are a liability and employers have no trouble dismissing with cause.
Also, the ones out of work for a while and watching their expenses are the ones need the job coaching not the clients you have given as an example. Evidently, as you have said (Rita Ashley) the companies look for them and hunt them down. They really don’t need help or advice. Their attributes are hard to attain. It’s already established. Please don’t think i’m attacking anyone here. I’m not like that, and I try hard to not offend. But, notice there are a bunch of negating responses.
I bet “Don’t hire seemingly job hoppers” will not last the test of time as a wise saying. joking … it may … who knows
Are we talking about 40 or 50 somethings in age? It’s been five years since I graduated (long story) from college and haven’t found a steady job, yet. Mostly, seasonal positions, temp positions, and other life circumstanses, which are like too personal to discuss in an interview, ends it. I’m assuming it will take some time to find a perfect fit, mainly, because of my personal character and ideology. There are a bunch of people in the corporate world that makes my spiritial radar bursts into flames. By the way, I don’t mean religious radar. Read the book not just the cover. Don’t judge a book by its cover. These wise sayings have defeated time for a reason.
The media (web, tv, radio) is filled with misinformation. And, we’re supposed, which many of us do, accept it as hard facts and truth. General rules to business and recruiting (life) are good. But, the best outcomes usually are unpredictable. Our economy won’t last very much longer if we keep doing business the way we do. Also, many applicants do lie, and they have backup in case the recruiters call a reference. I’ve seen it done so many times. They get the job and someone honest doesn’t.
Peter Trudell >>> Great Response!!! I believe adhering to strict rules in the hiring process may lead to dismissing a great potential employee. Many of the most brilliant minds weren’t well organized, presentable, likable, extraordinary salesmen, so forth. I hope you get the point.
Hi Rita,
I assume you have the best intentions sharing your knowledge, thank you.
Regarding your comment about having “two current clients, both earned over $1 million US dollars last year. Both are ready to move up the ladder and both have spent over 5 years in current roles. The jobs are finding them.”
The jobs are probably finding them because of their unique qualifications, and high-level executive roles tend to last longer. In the times of the .com boom, people were hopping from job to job every six months while CEO/presidents used to stay longer (at least until they could cash their stock options!).
Thank you again.
While I understand your outrage, it is misplaced. Recruiters do what their clients request. They have no authority to do otherwise. Companies themselves seek out those with solid work history, whether they use a recruiter or not. It has always been the practice of companies to look for executives and technology professionals who stay in jobs on average five years.
As far as companies going bust, that is certainly an aspect of some people’s lives. But the PATTERN of short jobs is what is in question, not one job where a person is caught. It is also wrong to assume that people who are laid off have been with the company only a short time. Layoffs and company closings hit everyone, even those with long tenure at a job. Being laid off is not synonymous with job hopping. The simple truth is, the more less-than-three year stints on an exeucitve’s resume, the harder it has always been to land a terrific job at a terrific salary.
This is a bit ridiculous given that so many companies are going bust themselves nowadays and/or outsource all work offshore. That is certainly not the employee’s fault, and it is just plain stupid for the recruiter to hold that against applicants. Why does the business would continue to think it is ok for CEO’s and executives to run companies into the ground, laying off all the hardworking employees in the process, yet reward those very same executives for failure?
Peter, You make a good point. Which is why how you handle the dates and information on your resume is so important. If you list the most recent company with the inclusive dates then use sub-dates indented with appropriate accomplishments, it prevents confusion.
Acquisitions can make you look like a job-hopper even when you don’t leave. I’ve stayed through 4 of them so far, and twice more left due to one. People who spend a few seconds scanning a resume are not likely to pick up on such subtleties, even if the acquisitions are quite well-known. When I’m hiring, I’m not so quick to discard resumes for such superficial reasons. Digging deeper has enabled me to hire some great employees who were getting overlooked everywhere else.
Peter
Hi Rita,
Thank you for the link to my blog post on How 11 Interviewing Decisions Really Got Made (http://bit.ly/d1rpp7). A candidate with relevant experience and a visible record of success will always get the nod over a candidate who has changed jobs frequently.
I ask my clients how long they want the person they hire to be in the job. I then looks at applicants’ tenure record for the previous 10 years. If they haven’t, on average, stayed in their jobs as long as my client wants them to stay in the job at hand, it’s considerably less likely that I will interview them.
Cheers,
Donna
Thanks for your comment. Mario, You are right. I didn’t address the post to contract players.
The post was addressed to executives. Those with ambitions to ‘C’ level jobs. And for those people, longevity and outcomes are critical.
Mario, I am sorry, but I don’t know to what you refer about an article. My piece is on job hoppers and how recruiters treat them.
I have two current clients, both earned over $1 million US dollars last year. Both are ready to move up the ladder and both have spent over 5 years in current roles. The jobs are finding them. Major companies and their recruiters seek them out because their track records are visible. That doesn’t happen when you stay less than two years at most of your jobs.
If you want a career, not just employment, planning is important; tenure is required. Good jobs go to those who have proven themselves and you simply can’t do that unless you stick around a while. The solution is to recover from job hopping and if that is required, it is building your credentials so you have the career you want, not just another job.
In the US, lying on a resume gets you fired immediately. And employers do check. Everyone does not do it and I am sorry you believe that. Most successful executives have the credentials and have no reason to lie.
Please don’t assume that all people looking for a new job are unemployed, broke, or if unemployed, that they are desperate. Lying is not a solution, and yes, many executives belong to golf or tennis related country clubs and other sports clubs.
I’m not sure about this fluff piece Rita. The Wall Street Journal article has two sources – one a chain of restaurants – and it suddenly becomes a major problem?
The solution seems odd also. Stay in a job for 5 years – in order to stand a better chance of finding another job. Why not try for another job in the meantime ? Is employment now akin to a prison service ?
Or heres a more humane suggestion than hanging about country clubs – lie on your resume. Everyone does.
Country clubs ?! Jesus.
Rita, this ignores a whole raft of people who work on fixed contract terms (with possible extension). There are millions of people who work like this, some like myself on very good payrates and with exceedingly good skills. However , many of these contracts – by their very nature – may be short.
Also , by the logic here, you should stay in a position for 5 years – in order to be able to move to another one.
Absolute madness.
Maybe this sort of article is aimed at impressionable 20-somethings but seasoned professionals ?
Gimme a break.
It is always wise to learn what can be learned about a prospective candidate’s background. The fact remains, many employers, not all, will not consider anyone with 18 month – 2 year stints. They won’t take the risk. The trick is to find the employer who can look at the potential and land where you can stay. As you know, it is hard to see into the company’s future, but too many short stints lowers the employment currency.
So many executives are already members of country clubs or sports clubs. The idea is to maintain your activities because they may result in the very connections you desire. Though it may be hard to accept, not all job seekers are financially compromised, nor have they been out of work for a long time.
Many of my clients are currently employed and they still need to keep up their networking activities. Cutting out the opportunity to mingle with the very people who can become your champions seems unproductive to me.
Great article Rita. As a recruiter, I will often take the time to ASK candidates about their brief tenure and find out why the left after a short time. I’ll sometimes even put it in their resume as to why they left. Often bad luck (layoffs, acquisitions, doors closed) is out of the candidates hands, and it may help to explain that they didn’t “job hop” out of their on their own.
As far as networking at a country club… who can afford to belong to one when you’ve been out of work and have to watch those expenses??? They have free memberships or something?