Usually you can easily explain issues such as contracts (you could also put "(Contract)" around that specific entry). However, the "no churn" requirement bugs

Usually you can easily explain issues such as contracts (you could also put "(Contract)" around that specific entry). However, the "no churn" requirement bugs me too. In startups, churn of some sort is usually inevitable and healthy: not only do start-ups fail and/or down-size, but there are also changes in direction and culture. Big companies, on the other hand, have frequently changing business objections to and a little flexibility: it's too easy to get stuck in a position where one isn't learning. Perhaps Google's approach to this is in the right vein: use the hiring process to screen for people who are "smart and get things done" (with a high degree of certainty), yet allow them to change projects/groups at will. Reward accordingly for business priorities. However: start-ups can't afford the costs of Google's hiring process and many big-companies can't attract the sort of talent where this practice would work. As such, churn (at least for engineering) is inevitable. On the other hand, doing a background check and actually following up on the references, should filter out the "job hoppers": people going from position to position for a raiser or promotion. In fact an ideal test would be to initially offer someone coming from a short stint a slightly lesser compensation -- and then give them an immediate raise.