4 ms·

While there are certainly companies that will not give bonus points for having once pursued an entrepreneurial path, I don't think entrepreneurship in and of it

While there are certainly companies that will not give bonus points for having once pursued an entrepreneurial path, I don't think entrepreneurship in and of itself is generally as problematic as it's made out to be here. Constructive criticism: I think the author's difficulties are probably more about his overall positioning than his history of entrepreneurial pursuits. For better or worse, positioning can mean the difference between getting lots of job offers and getting none. The first thing I noticed in looking at the author's LinkedIn profile, which is the first result when you Google his name, is that it tells me more about what he's done than what he has actually accomplished. That's not helpful because prospective employers don't just want to know where you've worked, they want to know what you've achieved. If I were the author, I would rewrite my job descriptions to focus on the tangible benefits realized by my contributions. Right now, I can't figure out what value the author has created for his companies/clients/employers because it's simply not described. Also, certain red flags simply aren't likely to be overlooked. Examples of these red flags include: 1. No full-time roles. 2. A history of job hopping (i.e. most/lots of stints under 18-24 months) 3. Jobs with overlapping dates. 4. Unexplained gaps in employment history. 5. No discernible career "path" (i.e. being all over the place in terms of what you've done). 6. Lots of moving around (geographically). 7. Bizarre job titles. 8. Job title progression that is inconsistent with a traditional development path (i.e. a jump from an entry-level job title to a senior-level job title in less than a year is likely going to be questioned). 9. Public musings in which you paint yourself as financially strained, burnt out, confused, etc. Obviously, you can not and should not lie about your work history, so when these sorts of red flags exist, there might not be an easy way to deal with them. But I don't get the impression that the author has really looked at his CV and made an effort to argue compellingly that he brings a lot to the table. So blaming his entrepreneurial past for his failure to find a job is, in my opinion, misguided. Finally, the author can't expect a good outcome if he's not where the jobs he's interested in are. If, say, I was interested in meeting the author for lunch next week to discuss a job opening, I would be unable to do so because he's in Thailand. And I, like most other employers, am not going to wait until "mid-September" for the privilege of interviewing him.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ArekDymalski 13y ago
While general spirit of your reply (OP can present himself better) is helpful, I have to rant about the "red flags" you've mentioned. The criticism isn't aimed directly at you, but against recruiters who base their decisions on such factors. You see the red flags 2-8 are nothing more than just heuristics, mental shortcuts which have nothing (or very, very little) to do with competences (and that's what the recruiters should look for, right?).Actually from your list only the point no 9 could be considered as a red flag, in terms of a warning sign, not reason to filter the candidate out.
- 7Figures2Commas 13y ago
  You're right to a certain theoretical extent. A candidate with a history of job hopping, unexplained gaps in employment history and bizarre job titles could be the most talented person in the world. But how is an employer supposed to know that if the candidate doesn't do a good job of presenting his capabilities and accomplishments? Candidates have to be realistic: most employers can't thoroughly evaluate every candidate, so certain red flags are going to be used as filters. Have a bunch of red flags? For better or worse, a recruiter or prospective employer is going to assume that where there's smoke, there's fire, probably without even talking to you. At the end of the day, if you're looking for a job, it's up to you to sell yourself effectively. Far too many people assume that because they're competent, their competence will be evident to others. But hiring managers or recruiters generally don't see more than what you put in front of them. If you're not strategic about how you position yourself and/or you're too lazy to put together a convincing "pitch", prospective employers will have no way of seeing the real you. And even if the supply of obviously good technical candidates is often limited today, the risks of a bad hire are generally too high to warrant taking a chance on someone who was incapable of presenting a compelling CV or "story" in the first place.
  - ArekDymalski 13y ago
    You are absolutely right, in terms of describing the reality. In fact,I used to do exactly the same when I was a rookie recruiter (and there was plenty of candidates on the market btw). However when the job market changed I had to change my approach to hiring. And that's why I'm ranting about this topic. Becuase many recruiters make rookie mistakes and at the same time complain about lack of talent on the market.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ArekDymalski 13y ago

While general spirit of your reply (OP can present himself better) is helpful, I have to rant about the "red flags" you've mentioned. The criticism isn't aimed directly at you, but against recruiters who base their decisions on such factors. You see the red flags 2-8 are nothing more than just heuristics, mental shortcuts which have nothing (or very, very little) to do with competences (and that's what the recruiters should look for, right?).Actually from your list only the point no 9 could be considered as a red flag, in terms of a warning sign, not reason to filter the candidate out.

7Figures2Commas 13y ago
You're right to a certain theoretical extent. A candidate with a history of job hopping, unexplained gaps in employment history and bizarre job titles could be the most talented person in the world. But how is an employer supposed to know that if the candidate doesn't do a good job of presenting his capabilities and accomplishments? Candidates have to be realistic: most employers can't thoroughly evaluate every candidate, so certain red flags are going to be used as filters. Have a bunch of red flags? For better or worse, a recruiter or prospective employer is going to assume that where there's smoke, there's fire, probably without even talking to you. At the end of the day, if you're looking for a job, it's up to you to sell yourself effectively. Far too many people assume that because they're competent, their competence will be evident to others. But hiring managers or recruiters generally don't see more than what you put in front of them. If you're not strategic about how you position yourself and/or you're too lazy to put together a convincing "pitch", prospective employers will have no way of seeing the real you. And even if the supply of obviously good technical candidates is often limited today, the risks of a bad hire are generally too high to warrant taking a chance on someone who was incapable of presenting a compelling CV or "story" in the first place.
- ArekDymalski 13y ago
  You are absolutely right, in terms of describing the reality. In fact,I used to do exactly the same when I was a rookie recruiter (and there was plenty of candidates on the market btw). However when the job market changed I had to change my approach to hiring. And that's why I'm ranting about this topic. Becuase many recruiters make rookie mistakes and at the same time complain about lack of talent on the market.