No doubt about it, the concept of a corporate “lifer” has become a thing of the past. Americans are no longer staying at the same job for 40 years. In fact, on average, Americans between 18-44 years old held 11 jobs between 1978 and 2008. Here are some surprising statistics on the current state of the workforce:
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that today, the average worker stays at each job for 4.4 years.
- 91% of millennials (born between 1977-1997) expect to stay in a job for less than three years, according to a Future Workplace Survey.
- Today, a third of our workforce is either self-employed or hired on a contract basis.
As a staffing strategist, I don’t look at job-hoppers the same way I did ten years ago. After all, often people who frequently change jobs are doing so for exciting or challenging growth opportunities – and employers are increasingly viewing them as well rounded and ambitious, with a variety of skills and experiences under their belts. These candidates are especially attractive to some hiring clients, who have cut back on training and education for their employees, due to economic constraints. Dig deep into a resume chock full of jobs and you may discover a history of forward motion and increased pay at every move.
On the other hand, there are many unfortunate reasons why “hoppers” jump around. It’s vital that recruiters remain non-judgmental and open-minded to a resume listing multiple jobs. Some excellent candidates have been repeatedly “victimized” by downsizing, corporate relocations or the disbanding of departments. Take the time to listen to their stories and you may find that so-called job hoppers have legitimate personal or professional reasons for numerous job changes.
How do you determine if a job hopper is HOT or NOT?
Check out these scenarios…
Candidate performed the same job–at the same level–for numerous companies: One of the recruiters on my staff just interviewed a woman who was searching for her fourth marketing manager position in the past five years. Her previous jobs were all strikingly similar. And although her past employers were industry-specific, the firms she worked for varied in size and corporate structure. We were concerned that this candidate could not “fit” in to any of her previous roles for longer than a year. NOT so hot…
Candidate dabbled in many different industries, and had many different jobs, with no clear direction. The lack of continuity on a resume sends up red flags for most recruiters. But I believe that it is totally acceptable for people to explore different opportunities throughout their career. The key is to determine if there are common threads that run from job to job. It is up to the recruiter to look beneath the surface and explore the candidate’s drivers. What are the applicant’s ultimate goals? (Without an objective, how will this person stay motivated in future roles?) Does the applicant have any noteworthy successes and accomplishments? Does s/he possess the skills, enthusiasm and work ethic for the job s/he is applying for? This is the real question! Could be hot…or not.
Candidate worked for large organizations but never showed promotability. Sure, there are many small, flat organizations that limit growth potential. But when a candidate goes from large organization to large organization, constantly hitting a dead end, you SHOULD be concerned about their promotability (or lack thereof). Ask the candidate very specific questions about departmental structure and headcount. Question if others in the same role advanced. Find out why or why not? The responses will tell you if s/he is hot or not.
Candidate was laid-off. According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, In February of 2013, employers took over 1,400 mass layoff actions involving over 135,000 workers. And while the true definition of a layoff is when a firm eliminates jobs regardless of how good the employees’ performance, we all know that companies use these reductions in workforce as opportunities to clean house, too.
So, how do you spot hot talent in this large pool of prospects? There are some key questions that need to be answered. Was the candidate laid off once, or over and over again? (Multiple lay-offs raise the red flag.) Was this an individual, departmental or company-wide lay off? How many people in the candidate’s department were affected? And how many held a similar position? Of those, how many were let go? If there were several in the role and some were spared, why was this candidate one of those laid off? Ask these questions to determine whether or not to lower the red flags. Could be hot … or not.
Candidate gave up on difficult problems. Did the candidate choose to flee rather than fix challenging work situations? Many people have legitimate reasons for leaving a “job from hell.” But does the candidate seem adaptable? Now more than ever, S@#T happens. New managers. Changing responsibilities, Shifting initiatives. Increased workloads or hour—it’s all part of today’s “doing more with less” business environment. If the candidate has a history of leaving job after job because s/he couldn’t deal with change, you should assume they’re not so hot.
In an ironic twist, some employees who stay at a job for five or more years are viewed as unambitious, inflexible or set in their ways. For example, those in certain technology roles are most valued when they show a history of challenging, growth-oriented moves as opposed to holding one position in “maintenance mode.”
But consider my friend John, a 15-year veteran with a telecommunications giant. He stayed with the same organization all these years, as his industry continually redefined itself. John exemplifies the traits of a survivor! Candidates like John, who have adapted to changing times, technologies, processes and management, are NOT set in their ways or inflexible. Quite the contrary…
In today’s corporate world, there’s very little loyalty left on either side of the equation. Since the economic downturn, many employers have been vilified as heartless, selfish and focused on the bottom line. Now, the tables are turning and employees are the ones moving up and out. HR needs to accept that job-hopping has become the new normal. Critical thinking and targeted inquiry will help you determine the true value of so-called job hoppers as well as those with long-term work experiences.
Great points Gail, thanks for sharing!
I don’t agree. You call them hoppers and we call them jumpers. The applicant jumps from place to place to place. Employers want stability in a potential employee. Applicants look for decent pay. The applicant emphasis on “decent pay” because they have an “accustomed standard” (not to be confused with a standard of living) and some employer legitimately can’t pay the salary that some applicants ask. Some employers realize they have to “right size” their salary budgetary lines and others are simply taking advantage of the recession. The second issue is transferability of skills. This is a key point to an employer. The individual may be the “one” where they currently work but may not be the “one” where they are applying. It is amazing to me how different offices have different standards. Either mine are exceptionally high or others exceptionally low. When I match the salary to the lack of skills that some applicants have, I prefer to start with an entry level individual and teach. Some may say that the experienced applicant can be taught as well but at high salary level I refuse to teach applicants what they should have learned already, either as a function of work or on their own. I have interviewed applicant who were absolute drones and want salary a quarter short of a six figure number. I learned at an early age that my professional growth is about what I put into it. When I “jumped” my new employers were ecstatic with what I brought in knowledge and my former employers wept because they had to hire 2-3 people to do the same job I performed.
Great report, interesting, since I am in this boat.
Employees also leave their jobs for more pay due to stagnant salary increases.