job hopping

[dettu]

I realize people who leave in a hurry have their reasons...oh, do I ever.

Was discussing this with my sister recently and we disagreed...how long must one stay in a new position before leaving it would not be viewed with suspicion by prospective employers? In other words, how short a period of work at a new place constitutes job hopping? What's your opinion?

[Katie G]

Interesting question.  I don' t think there's a hard and fast rule.

However, I know my organization likes to hire a lot of twentysomethings for certain positions.  And the resumes that float through from that age group tend to have much shorter lengths of time than those from applicants in their 30s and older.  There seems to be an understanding, however, that that time in one's life is for trying out things, so a 23-year old applicant listing 6 jobs in the past 4 years isn't seen as something so unusual.  

The older the applicant gets though, it seems to be expected (at least in my organization) that lengths of previous employment will be considerably longer.  Measured in years, not months.  

Admittedly, it smacks of a double standard.  A twentysomething "job hopping" is seen as "experimenting" and "gaining experience" while a thirty- or fortysomething with a similar history is seen as "flighty" or "not committed" or even "unable to hold a job".  

Then again, with the downturn in the economy, I've noticed many "older" workers who had previously hired themselves out as contractors to companies are now applying for permanent employment with one employer as companies cut back on consultants and the like.  So these folks tend to have highly varied resumes, listing jobs lasting from a few weeks to a few months, and often overlapping.

So I don't think there's "one" answer.  It really does depend on the individual.

[mlm668]

One of my first employers told me that it takes at least six months for a person to really learn their job. Over the years I've seen that he was right in that it can take up to six months for a person to experience every possible task they may encounter in their job simply because of the required schedule for those tasks.  

To me, any position held under a year is a red flag - especially if there are gaps in between those jobs.  If they are noted as temp positions, that is more workable since we all know how temping can be feast or famine.



Michelle

[peaches2160]

From my HR days, 2 plus years was the key.  However, it does depend on the type of work.  Temping is understood as well as contracting, as jobs with a varied length of service.  

[dettu]

So, peaches, if a person were to get into a new position and find it just intolerable (just not a good fit for the team), what would be the best way of finding a new position without looking irresponsible? Given your background, I mean--I'm interested in your professional opinion.

[gee4]

I would say you need at least 6-12 months in a job to fully own it and understand it.

I have only left a job after 2-3 years because I wanted to or because I was made redundant.

If after 12 months in a role I felt it wasn't working out, I would be honest at any interview and say so.  I know everyone says it's easier to get a job if you are in one, but I don't think staying somewhere for the sake of it is healthy or favouable.

Employers will make up their own minds at the end of the day regardless of what we tell them.

In my case it's more a case of "job ending".

[mlm668]

Dettu,

I think the red flag is someone who has 2, 3 or more jobs that last less than 90 days back to back.  Everyone understands that you can get into a job and it not be a good fit.  I have 2 like that back to back on my resume and it raises questions.  The first I took because, well, I had to.  In VA unemployment rules require you to accept any reasonable offer and since it was a good salary and in my field I had to take it or risk losing my benefits (which of course stop when you start working again).  I gave it two months before I seriously started looking again and tell prospective employers the duties turned out to be other than advertised and not the path I was seeking.  The next job lasted 90 days and then I was let go.  It wasn't a good fit for me or them but I was trying to stick it out and I tell prospective employers that.  It was just my luck that they chose to terminate after 90 days were up and unfortunately, no matter the reason, that termination looks bad - never mind that before those two jobs I had only had two employers in the prior 13 years and was as the latter 8 years before the new owners eliminated my job.

Now I'm looking again.  I've been here nearly 18 months and those two blips are always questioned when I manage to get an interview.  I hate it but it can't be avoided.  I just figure an employer worth working for will understand.

Michelle

[queenbean]

I think everyone is entitled to one blip on their CV, no matter how short the period of employment but it's when a pattern develops that it'll raise a red flag to a potential employer and will likely go against you (even if it's an unfair assumption).

My blip was a job for just 3 months where it turned out I was completely unsuited to the company's structure.  I had come from a very flat-structured, innovative company and I moved to something much more hierarchical thinking that I wanted to try something different.  I was strangled with red tape from the beginning and it simply didn't suit me, and my gut feeling on my first day was the same as on my last that it was just a horrible mistake.

I think as long as you're very honest about why you leave a job so quickly, then an employer ought to understand.   And it helps to be able to put a positive spin on it - I always explain that it was a poor decision on my part, but the experience helped me learn a lot about myself and identified the type of organisation I now know I'm suited to (and those which I'm not!)

QB

[gee4]

Blips are unavoidable especially were redundancy is concerned and I feel very strongly about this.

So, is it right for a potential employer to have concerns about the blips on my CV or should they look at my CV positively and think, well this person certainly didn't waste any time in finding work when she lost a job or when faced with redundancy?

Sometimes I think employers would prefer our CV's to be blank rather than see we accepted short-term work to keep our skills up to take, help us refrain from being idle and avoid having to accept benefits while we are unemployed.

If potential employers are too narrow-minded to see beyond that and cannot view our skills and career history to date as something positive, then we have very little to strive for.

[laurafmcdermott]

I've had several "blips"--but I have never found it necessary to include them on my resume.  Anything less than a year I leave out.  Since I list dates on my resume by year only, no big holes show through.  I've never mentioned them in interviews either, unless I am currently in an unsuitable position that I am trying to leave.  Every employer I have interviewed with has people complete an actual application (the legally binding document) after you pretty much have the job.  I put my exact dates of employment on the application, but by that point they are usually only interested in verifying what I have put down rather than asking why there are missing dates.  I have not had a problem thus far.  Perhaps laws are different in the UK?  But in the US, the CV/Resume is just the introduction and you are not required to put every job you've ever had on it, and you are not legally bound to it.   This way, I am hired based on my skills and abilities rather than my history.

[msmarieh]

I agree... If I had two 90 day jobs, I might list one, but not both. No reason to. It wouldn't be unusual to have a gap of 3-6 months (sometimes more!) of unemployment while you were looking for a job. I don't feel a need to volunteer everything about my history on the resume. For similar reasons, I don't include my earliest jobs. I keep my experience to the past 10-15 years.

Marie

[mlm668]

I can't leave those blips off my resume because the jobs I'm seeking are state jobs.  Their application system asks you to list ALL employer and attaching your resume is an option.  You can't send in your resume as an introduction first like with large corporations.

I've been working for a large internation corp the last 18 months as a contract employee to an even larger international corp and hate it.  No one wants to follow procedures becuase they feel they don't apply to them and when I need a question answered from the home office of my employer, no can even tell me who to ask the question of.  It took a month to get someone to talk to someone else to resolve an IT issue that was the result of a third person at another location assuming that since our contract at that location was ending, no one needed those accesses anymore (five sites needed those accesses). AAUUGGHHH!!!!  All to frustrating.

I figure if I'm going to have to deal with the frustrations of a large company, I'd rather it be just the one company I work for and have a great retirement benefit (and our state has a great one) plus extra holidays as a reason to put up with the nonsense.  

Michelle