4 ms·

That reads of someone who either can't stick something out, or someone that gets discovered as less-than-good over and over I agree, although "can't stick some

by kohanz 11y ago

That reads of someone who either can't stick something out, or someone that gets discovered as less-than-good over and over I agree, although "can't stick something out" is not always a negative connotation. The key is what the "something" is. I've seen this pattern of resume for both high-performers and low-performers. Not everyone has the patience to wait for recognition and promotion that may be long overdue or just plain unavailable. By looking for those who have longer engagements, I think you'll find yourself safely in the middle of the pack.

sokoloff 11y ago
If your longest is 18 months and average around 12 months, it seems a little hard to argue that your departures have typically been because promotions have been "long overdue", right? (I'm not suggesting that you need to wait indefinitely for well-earned rewards, of course. It's just that I've seen a lot of "thinks they're higher-performing and delivering more value than they are" than the reverse.)
- kohanz 11y ago
  If those are the numbers being discussed, then yes, the odds are tilted towards your interpretation, but we're generalizing. There will always be exceptions. My longest engagement is about 2.5 years. The average length is probably around 20 months. I've left every position by my own choice and to the dismay of my employer. I'm not trying to boast, but it's clear from my evals, references, and repeat business I've received since being independent that I was and am highly valued. Each job change came for a different reason (family/personal, wanting more responsibility, etc.) and was not premeditated when I took the job. I can't say for certain of course, but I have no reason to believe any of those employers regret hiring me. You can be incredibly productive and a contributor over a period of 1.5 years. In our business that's a long time. On the other side of the coin, I've worked with many mediocre performers who, due to lack of options, have recorded long stints at reputable companies. In my experience, for people to get let go, they need to be exceptionally bad. Average people stick around a long time. That's why I think using duration as a marker is double-sided. As you mentioned, promotions can be a good marker to offset this effect.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Completely agree.
  - snockerton 11y ago
    This. My experience has been that the average to poor performers oftentimes stay comfortable at low-expectation companies because they know they will have a difficult time finding a new job. Previous job longevity is worth next to nothing without talking to the candidate in my opinion.

by kohanz 11y ago

sokoloff 11y ago

If your longest is 18 months and average around 12 months, it seems a little hard to argue that your departures have typically been because promotions have been "long overdue", right? (I'm not suggesting that you need to wait indefinitely for well-earned rewards, of course. It's just that I've seen a lot of "thinks they're higher-performing and delivering more value than they are" than the reverse.)

kohanz 11y ago
If those are the numbers being discussed, then yes, the odds are tilted towards your interpretation, but we're generalizing. There will always be exceptions. My longest engagement is about 2.5 years. The average length is probably around 20 months. I've left every position by my own choice and to the dismay of my employer. I'm not trying to boast, but it's clear from my evals, references, and repeat business I've received since being independent that I was and am highly valued. Each job change came for a different reason (family/personal, wanting more responsibility, etc.) and was not premeditated when I took the job. I can't say for certain of course, but I have no reason to believe any of those employers regret hiring me. You can be incredibly productive and a contributor over a period of 1.5 years. In our business that's a long time. On the other side of the coin, I've worked with many mediocre performers who, due to lack of options, have recorded long stints at reputable companies. In my experience, for people to get let go, they need to be exceptionally bad. Average people stick around a long time. That's why I think using duration as a marker is double-sided. As you mentioned, promotions can be a good marker to offset this effect.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Completely agree.
- snockerton 11y ago
  This. My experience has been that the average to poor performers oftentimes stay comfortable at low-expectation companies because they know they will have a difficult time finding a new job. Previous job longevity is worth next to nothing without talking to the candidate in my opinion.