4 ms·

Its a red flag. If you are capable of taking of for an year, whats stopping you from taking off again. No one wants to hire someone who will leave after sometim

by modi15 9y ago

Its a red flag. If you are capable of taking of for an year, whats stopping you from taking off again. No one wants to hire someone who will leave after sometime. And there are probably other hires who dont have this red flag.

jamesrcole 9y ago
Not denying that some people might think that, but such reasoning doesn't make sense. Even if someone hasn't taken time off before, they're still capable of doing so in the future.
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
If you have more than one employer listed on your resume, what's stopping you from quitting the company that might hire you? No one wants to hire someone who will leave after some time for a new job.
- modi15 9y ago
  I didnt mean to imply that the perception is entirely fair. Infact, I think everyone should take a sabbatical and for more years. It helps in your personal growth which enriches your professional approach. That being said, the red flag is how recruiters see this. And no argument on the internets will change this perception. Recruiters spend a lot of time and money hiring tech workers - the last thing they want is any indication that the guy is not 'stable'. Its a demand/supply problem. The only 'solution' to this problem is if everyone starts taking sabbaticals and it stops being a big deal.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    I took a sabbatical from late 2016-early 2017. I didn't have any trouble with obtaining a new position after I ended my time off. Any company that would've given me trouble with my break isn't a company I want to work at. That said, I should note that the two primary things I did during my sabbatical are pretty much the antithesis of screwing around. I started a very successful non-profit and released a very well received update to an open source consumer-focused app that gets used by a couple hundred thousand people. So, YMMV.
- V-2 9y ago
  It's not a good analogy the way you put it, because having more than one employer in and of itself is so very common that it's hard to be biased against it. However a dinstinctly high frequency of changing jobs, say in the 90th percentile among candidates (and how many people take sabbaticals?), now that could be a red flag already. And for exactly that reason - it implies the candidate is relatively likely to jump teams again. Hence it is not absurd to assume quite a few employers would prefer someone who worked at 2 places throughout the past few years over someone who worked at 5 - all other things being equal, obviously. I am not arguing whether it's right or justified - or to what extent. That's another story.
  - croon 9y ago
    > It's not a good analogy the way you put it, because having more than one employer in and of itself is so very common that it's hard to be biased against it. Your parent compared one (1) gap year in a resume being a red flag for the explicit reason that they might leave again, to someone else having switched employers atleast once, for the exact same reason given by GP. It's a totally apt analogy. Leaving is leaving. Your further reasoning doesn't change this analogy. Many employment changes in a resume is no different to many gap years, in regards to the initially stated premise.
    - V-2 9y ago
      I disagree. Taking a gap year is a bigger career disruption than simply changing employers. It's not by coincidence that one is much more common than the other. The willingness to do former indicates lesser degree of dependence (or sense of dependence) on an ongoing employment than mere willingness to trade one job for another. That's why the "leaving is leaving" line of argument doesn't speak to me.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    You're right that constant job jumping, or several sabbaticals would be a red flag, but I don't think that a single year off would be. I was actually considering chasing another job last week, which would have better pay and more responsibilities, but decided not to, because I've only been in my current job for 6 months. It really isn't a good look if you're constantly jumping ship.
- adrianN 9y ago
  That's the thinking in some countries. Japan for example.
codingdave 9y ago
I want to work for a company that is good enough to make us want to be there, not to trap people there so they cannot leave. There are also companies out there that understand the reality of the tech world, and expect people will leave after a few years. Any company who wants to lock you in so you cannot leave... that is the red flag -- Run away fast.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Every company wants to lock you in because hiring and training somebody is extremely expensive. Some companies just do it in a less obvious way.
  - codingdave 9y ago
    Every company wants to reduce the cost of employee churn. Good companies to work for do so by building an environment where you want to be. Bad companies lock you in. They both want you to stay, but their methods for doing so tell you a ton about who they are.
Ultimatt 9y ago
Another interpretation is they've already gone and done a year for themselves and are now ready to work. Whereas everyone else could vanish at any time in a midlife crisis etc. The idea this is a red flag when hiring someone is madness to me.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
That's BS though. The fact that your employment history shows more than one employer shows that you're capable of taking off, maybe not for travel, but at least to another country. You're almost guaranteed that someone you're hiring will leave after some time.

by modi15 9y ago

jamesrcole 9y ago

Not denying that some people might think that, but such reasoning doesn't make sense. Even if someone hasn't taken time off before, they're still capable of doing so in the future.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

If you have more than one employer listed on your resume, what's stopping you from quitting the company that might hire you? No one wants to hire someone who will leave after some time for a new job.

modi15 9y ago
I didnt mean to imply that the perception is entirely fair. Infact, I think everyone should take a sabbatical and for more years. It helps in your personal growth which enriches your professional approach. That being said, the red flag is how recruiters see this. And no argument on the internets will change this perception. Recruiters spend a lot of time and money hiring tech workers - the last thing they want is any indication that the guy is not 'stable'. Its a demand/supply problem. The only 'solution' to this problem is if everyone starts taking sabbaticals and it stops being a big deal.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  I took a sabbatical from late 2016-early 2017. I didn't have any trouble with obtaining a new position after I ended my time off. Any company that would've given me trouble with my break isn't a company I want to work at. That said, I should note that the two primary things I did during my sabbatical are pretty much the antithesis of screwing around. I started a very successful non-profit and released a very well received update to an open source consumer-focused app that gets used by a couple hundred thousand people. So, YMMV.
V-2 9y ago
It's not a good analogy the way you put it, because having more than one employer in and of itself is so very common that it's hard to be biased against it. However a dinstinctly high frequency of changing jobs, say in the 90th percentile among candidates (and how many people take sabbaticals?), now that could be a red flag already. And for exactly that reason - it implies the candidate is relatively likely to jump teams again. Hence it is not absurd to assume quite a few employers would prefer someone who worked at 2 places throughout the past few years over someone who worked at 5 - all other things being equal, obviously. I am not arguing whether it's right or justified - or to what extent. That's another story.
- croon 9y ago
  > It's not a good analogy the way you put it, because having more than one employer in and of itself is so very common that it's hard to be biased against it. Your parent compared one (1) gap year in a resume being a red flag for the explicit reason that they might leave again, to someone else having switched employers atleast once, for the exact same reason given by GP. It's a totally apt analogy. Leaving is leaving. Your further reasoning doesn't change this analogy. Many employment changes in a resume is no different to many gap years, in regards to the initially stated premise.
  - V-2 9y ago
    I disagree. Taking a gap year is a bigger career disruption than simply changing employers. It's not by coincidence that one is much more common than the other. The willingness to do former indicates lesser degree of dependence (or sense of dependence) on an ongoing employment than mere willingness to trade one job for another. That's why the "leaving is leaving" line of argument doesn't speak to me.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  You're right that constant job jumping, or several sabbaticals would be a red flag, but I don't think that a single year off would be. I was actually considering chasing another job last week, which would have better pay and more responsibilities, but decided not to, because I've only been in my current job for 6 months. It really isn't a good look if you're constantly jumping ship.
adrianN 9y ago
That's the thinking in some countries. Japan for example.

codingdave 9y ago

I want to work for a company that is good enough to make us want to be there, not to trap people there so they cannot leave. There are also companies out there that understand the reality of the tech world, and expect people will leave after a few years. Any company who wants to lock you in so you cannot leave... that is the red flag -- Run away fast.

adrianN 9y ago
Every company wants to lock you in because hiring and training somebody is extremely expensive. Some companies just do it in a less obvious way.
- codingdave 9y ago
  Every company wants to reduce the cost of employee churn. Good companies to work for do so by building an environment where you want to be. Bad companies lock you in. They both want you to stay, but their methods for doing so tell you a ton about who they are.

Ultimatt 9y ago

Another interpretation is they've already gone and done a year for themselves and are now ready to work. Whereas everyone else could vanish at any time in a midlife crisis etc. The idea this is a red flag when hiring someone is madness to me.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

That's BS though. The fact that your employment history shows more than one employer shows that you're capable of taking off, maybe not for travel, but at least to another country. You're almost guaranteed that someone you're hiring will leave after some time.