someone employers viewed job research jobs still

Why do employers still see job-hopping as a bad thing?New research shows two-thirds of employers have opted not to interview someonewho has had short stints at companies. But why is job-hopping viewed sonegatively?We already know that in generations gone by, a 10-year tenure at a singlecompany would be considered far more impressive than someone who had five two-year stints at different companies.But, with a rich job market and the ability to travel and move around in theindustry becoming easier all the time, a more colourful CV has become far moreacceptable.And yet, in new research conducted by Indeed, it seems that job-hopping isstill viewed negatively by employers – so much so that 65pc of employerssurveyed said they have opted not to interview someone who has had short-tenure jobs at other companies.Indeed’s research also found that 44pc of employers feel having three short-tenure jobs on their CV is considered job-hopping.But why is changing jobs considered such a terrible trait to the extent thatsomeone who has a wealth of experience suited to a particular job may not evenget an interview?I’ve talked about job-hopping before because I know that jobseekers can worryabout how their CV might be perceived before they get the chance to even meetan interviewer. In fact, in a HR study last year, IBM found that the averagehiring manager spends just six seconds looking at CV – so, if that hiringmanager is inclined to view job-hopping as a negative, someone with a fewshort stints might be rejected faster than the time it takes to send anotherapplication.> ‘Making assumptions that job-hopping automatically means someone is not a> worthy candidate is just as bad as assuming all millennials are lazy or all> baby boomers are digitally inept’This new research is incredibly worrying as it solidifies the idea in bothemployer and employee minds that job-hopping should be viewed as a negativetrait when hiring the ideal candidate. Really, every candidate should bereviewed based on their own merit, whatever that might be.Employers might look at job-hopping as a red flag but when they choose not tointerview someone based on that alone, what they’re missing is context. Anypreconceived notions you may have about why someone moves jobs all the timewill become clear in an interview setting.## Unhappy daysJob-hopping should not be viewed as disloyalty or a lack of staying power. Itshould be viewed as a need to grow and upskill or, at the very least, arefusal to settle for being unhappy at work.In fact, Indeed’s research also highlighted that an unhappy workplace is themain reason for short stints. The statistics only get worse for women, too.Unhappiness at work was the reason behind short stints for 44pc of womencompared to 36pc of men.In addition to this, LinkedIn research earlier this week highlighted theamount of people who are unhappy at work. If these people are worried abouthow job-hopping looks to other employers, will that force them to stay put?Sadly, this does seem to be the case, with Indeed’s survey showing that 25pcof people have stayed in a role for longer than they wanted to avoid beinglabelled a ‘job-hopper’.When employers continue to fuel the idea that job-hopping is a bad trait, itmakes employees believe it too, which clearly forces many to stay in one joblonger than they should, simply to ‘do their time’. But if they’re no longergetting any value from staying in a job, are those extra few months reallyimproving them as a candidate for you?## Can employees ever win?While job-hopping is clearly still viewed as a bad thing by a lot ofemployers, staying put for too long can also imply a lack of growth orupskilling.I’ve seen both sides of the coin. I know someone who was in the same job formore than a decade and another who changed jobs five times in less than threeyears. Both of these people are highly competent, extremely experienced andincredibly hardworking. Yet they both worried about how employers viewed theirCV; the former feeling that staying still for too long looked bad, while theother worried about the negative connotations attached to job-hopping.The talent shortage across various industries may mean it’s a jobseeker’smarket out there. However, for every one job an employer has, it is stilllikely that many candidates will go for it, which means there is still fiercecompetition.Jobseekers will do their best to prove to employers that they’re the singlebest candidate for the job and, unfortunately, that means having to balancethe tightrope of figuring out how long is too long in one job or how many jobsis too many.Every candidate should be judged on merit and experience, because tarringeveryone with the same brush will only limit your talent pool and cast asidevaluable candidates.The truth is, someone who has shown extreme company loyalty might also havenever bothered to upskill. Equally, a job-hopper might indeed be disloyal andalways leave to go to the highest bidder.If you have these worries, by all means find out more at the interview stage.But making assumptions that job-hopping automatically means someone is not aworthy candidate is just as bad as assuming all millennials are lazy or allbaby boomers are digitally inept.