4 ms·
The idea isn't that the prospective candidate isn't loyal. As the theory has been described to me, a candidate who is still employed after the bloodbath has be
by techsupporter 16y ago
The idea isn't that the prospective candidate isn't loyal. As the theory has been described to me, a candidate who is still employed after the bloodbath has been able to successfully navigate the "don't get fired because you're now redundant" waters and remain "in the game." Allegedly this means that the person is one or more of: a) valuable; b) competent; c) a good salesperson of his or her worth. (That's the way the theory goes, at least; I'm sure we can all think of plenty more reasons why someone remains employed that are not at all desirable for future employers)
Regardless, being laid off in a down economy means "you suck" to some people and, since everyone professes to only wants the "top 10%," that naturally excludes the unemployed. It's akin to being arrested: You wouldn't have been arrested (fired) if you weren't guilty (worthless as an employee).
For the record, I strongly disagree with this "theory," but that's how it's been explained to me from two small business owners.
- lwhi 16y agoA person's ability to survive a culling, isn't usually the objective that the person was initially hired to achieve. It's perfectly reasonable that someone could be a very skilled ______ (gardener, banker, coder, nurse, chef, accountant etc.) and not be very skilled at office politics. It's perfectly reasonable that a person might have just suffered bad luck.
- cheez 16y agoI think that those who repeatedly navigate the layoff cycle successfully are either incredibly competent or evil and incompetent. I have only come across evil and incompetent though.
- angdis 16y agoThe other possibility is that they pay attention to the writing on the wall, keep their professional networks fresh and are ready to bail out in time before the lay-offs come.
- Duff 16y agoI think it depends on degree of unemployment. Folks in this 99 week situations have been unemployed for nearly 2 years... you have to wonder at some point why they haven't gotten some sort of job -- even a lousy one. For an IT job, are you really qualified for many midlevel or senior positions after two years of inactivity? That's a long time on the bench.
- bartonfink 16y agoI'd bet that someone who's been unemployed for 99 weeks without anything to show for it (e.g. taking a trip around South America), probably doesn't have midlevel or senior skills.
- Duff 16y agoI think that's the issue many folks have. You coast up the salary band at a big corporate or public sector employer and get accustomed to a $100k gig coordinating paperclip management or something. At big companies especially, it's easy to turn into an specialist on the processes within the company instead of whatever your job title is. Meanwhile, your marketable skills have eroded to the point that you no longer fit where you feel you should.