5 ms·

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 wi

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.
  - V-2 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. Probably not - all I'm saying is that a single gap year doesn't carry the same weight as a one job switch decision. The conversion rate cannot be, and isn't one-to-one, so to speak; unless we're going ad absurdum
adrianN 9y ago
That's the thinking in some countries. Japan for example.

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.
- V-2 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. Probably not - all I'm saying is that a single gap year doesn't carry the same weight as a one job switch decision. The conversion rate cannot be, and isn't one-to-one, so to speak; unless we're going ad absurdum

adrianN 9y ago

That's the thinking in some countries. Japan for example.