4 ms·

Such frequent job changes on a resume will be a massive red flag to any hiring manager.

lukas099 4y ago
It doesn't seem to have caused them much trouble.
callahad 4y ago
Note that each row is not necessarily a new employer; raises, promotions, and contract-to-permanent conversions are also represented as new rows. From external appearances, I'm not too concerned about Xe. They'll be able to find an interesting role if Tailscale fails to pan out.
notjulianjaynes 4y ago
Why is this considered a red flag? Honest question. Ignoring exchange rates, this person is making about double the median income of Massachusetts, which already is one of the higher paying states. Is it really a red flag if someone is still going to pay you $150,000/year? I wonder what effect this would have if non-tech workers did the same. Going back to Massachusetts (guess where I live), a recent law prohibits employers from asking about your previous salary, presumably so they can't then low ball you based off that.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > Why is this considered a red flag? Hiring people takes a lot of work. You have to recruit and interview a large number of people, interview them until you've settled on the best candidate for the job, get them to accept an offer, and then send polite rejection letters to everyone else. If the candidate you hire then quits within a few months, you have to start the process all over again. Even worse, you've also lost several months of progress that you were hoping to make on this project with the new hire, as well as another month while you try to re-fill the position. On top of that, you already rejected your 2nd and 3rd choice candidates, who probably have taken other jobs already or are otherwise not interested. Beyond that, a pattern of short jobs with large gaps in between can be a warning sign of behavioral or personal issues that make the person difficult to work with. This shouldn't be assumed from a few short jobs on a resume, but if someone has 9 different back-to-back jobs of less than 12 months each, the interview process should do a very deep investigation into why those jobs didn't last very long so you can decide if your company will stand a better chance at retaining this employee than the last jobs.
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    > If the candidate you hire then quits within a few months, you have to start the process all over again. That's a good callout for the positions with very short tenure. If you can tell in <30 days that it's not going to work out, there's a good chance that the company will be able to cut their losses and call back some of the other applicants, short-circuiting the hiring process and saving everyone involved both money and time. It could totally be positioned as considering the employer's interests.
- synicalx 4y ago
  It's a simple case of trend spotting - multiple terminations and the only common factor is the candidate. Either they've just happened to have picked a whole bunch of bad employers, or there is some complication/issue with the candidate themselves that is severe enough that it's caused multiple terminations. As a hiring manager you won't know until you hire them, and if they turn out to be unsuitable (as the data would suggest) then you're back to square one looking for a new candidate so you're taking a real gamble when you hire someone with a resume full of terminations and short stays. In a busy job market like we've had the last couple of years (and arguably before that in a lot of places) you can get away with having a resume like this and use job hopping to boost your income. But IMO long term this gets harder and harder to explain especially if the trend continues especially outside of junior or non-senior/staff type roles.
goodpoint 4y ago
Not just frequent but with demotions and termination.
- xena 4y ago
  Six years ago.
differentView 4y ago
*to SOME hiring manager Saves time for both parties. OP is obviously still getting hired.

It doesn't seem to have caused them much trouble.

Note that each row is not necessarily a new employer; raises, promotions, and contract-to-permanent conversions are also represented as new rows. From external appearances, I'm not too concerned about Xe. They'll be able to find an interesting role if Tailscale fails to pan out.

notjulianjaynes 4y ago

Why is this considered a red flag? Honest question. Ignoring exchange rates, this person is making about double the median income of Massachusetts, which already is one of the higher paying states. Is it really a red flag if someone is still going to pay you $150,000/year? I wonder what effect this would have if non-tech workers did the same. Going back to Massachusetts (guess where I live), a recent law prohibits employers from asking about your previous salary, presumably so they can't then low ball you based off that.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> Why is this considered a red flag? Hiring people takes a lot of work. You have to recruit and interview a large number of people, interview them until you've settled on the best candidate for the job, get them to accept an offer, and then send polite rejection letters to everyone else. If the candidate you hire then quits within a few months, you have to start the process all over again. Even worse, you've also lost several months of progress that you were hoping to make on this project with the new hire, as well as another month while you try to re-fill the position. On top of that, you already rejected your 2nd and 3rd choice candidates, who probably have taken other jobs already or are otherwise not interested. Beyond that, a pattern of short jobs with large gaps in between can be a warning sign of behavioral or personal issues that make the person difficult to work with. This shouldn't be assumed from a few short jobs on a resume, but if someone has 9 different back-to-back jobs of less than 12 months each, the interview process should do a very deep investigation into why those jobs didn't last very long so you can decide if your company will stand a better chance at retaining this employee than the last jobs.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  > If the candidate you hire then quits within a few months, you have to start the process all over again. That's a good callout for the positions with very short tenure. If you can tell in <30 days that it's not going to work out, there's a good chance that the company will be able to cut their losses and call back some of the other applicants, short-circuiting the hiring process and saving everyone involved both money and time. It could totally be positioned as considering the employer's interests.
synicalx 4y ago
It's a simple case of trend spotting - multiple terminations and the only common factor is the candidate. Either they've just happened to have picked a whole bunch of bad employers, or there is some complication/issue with the candidate themselves that is severe enough that it's caused multiple terminations. As a hiring manager you won't know until you hire them, and if they turn out to be unsuitable (as the data would suggest) then you're back to square one looking for a new candidate so you're taking a real gamble when you hire someone with a resume full of terminations and short stays. In a busy job market like we've had the last couple of years (and arguably before that in a lot of places) you can get away with having a resume like this and use job hopping to boost your income. But IMO long term this gets harder and harder to explain especially if the trend continues especially outside of junior or non-senior/staff type roles.

goodpoint 4y ago

Not just frequent but with demotions and termination.

xena 4y ago
Six years ago.

differentView 4y ago

*to SOME hiring manager Saves time for both parties. OP is obviously still getting hired.