Job-hunting fits very well with the model in “Don’t Fear Failure”: the downside risk is zero. The worst case is accepting a bad job. Assuming you’re a USian, jobs are at-will, so just leave then, and you’re no worse off.
As a job-hunter, I’ve learned to model the probability of getting any one job as infinitesimal, so I don’t get too hung up on any one application. Let them do the rejecting.
Assuming you’re a USian, jobs are at-will, so just leave then, and you’re no worse off.
Is this true? I was always told that employers look down on a spotty employment history; they are less likely to hire someone whose job history is littered with jobs that have been held for less than a year.
Yes. (Their worst-case scenario: You’re a “professional plaintiff” who hires on, sues for something or other, gets a (confidential) settlement, and moves on).
They also look down on being in the same job a long time (assumption: lack of motivation to advance, etc.). And they look down on gaps in employment (assumption: you were in prison).
To summarize the summary of the summary, HR reps hate people.
I have heard that many times over the course of my adult working life. I tend to agree with it mostly, although I doubt that it applies equally to all types of work, and it may have been more true in the past than it is in today’s economy and with today’s technology. I would think that it could vary wildly between say a position such as “Office Manager” and that of “Newspaper Reporter”. The reason(s) for leaving would matter a great deal as well. Leaving a job for a much better job (better pay, more prestige, etc.) is quite different than leaving a job due to personality clash or poor work performance. There also could be a big difference depending upon the values of the employer in charge of doing the hiring. The person(s) with decision-making responsibility might place more emphasis on other traits and accomplishments, and not care terribly much that the employee left a job or jobs after a short time of being employed.
Job-hunting fits very well with the model in “Don’t Fear Failure”: the downside risk is zero. The worst case is accepting a bad job. Assuming you’re a USian, jobs are at-will, so just leave then, and you’re no worse off.
As a job-hunter, I’ve learned to model the probability of getting any one job as infinitesimal, so I don’t get too hung up on any one application. Let them do the rejecting.
Is this true? I was always told that employers look down on a spotty employment history; they are less likely to hire someone whose job history is littered with jobs that have been held for less than a year.
Yes. (Their worst-case scenario: You’re a “professional plaintiff” who hires on, sues for something or other, gets a (confidential) settlement, and moves on).
They also look down on being in the same job a long time (assumption: lack of motivation to advance, etc.). And they look down on gaps in employment (assumption: you were in prison).
To summarize the summary of the summary, HR reps hate people.
I’ve heard people claim that leaving a job in less than a year looks very bad on the resume. True?
I have heard that many times over the course of my adult working life. I tend to agree with it mostly, although I doubt that it applies equally to all types of work, and it may have been more true in the past than it is in today’s economy and with today’s technology. I would think that it could vary wildly between say a position such as “Office Manager” and that of “Newspaper Reporter”. The reason(s) for leaving would matter a great deal as well. Leaving a job for a much better job (better pay, more prestige, etc.) is quite different than leaving a job due to personality clash or poor work performance. There also could be a big difference depending upon the values of the employer in charge of doing the hiring. The person(s) with decision-making responsibility might place more emphasis on other traits and accomplishments, and not care terribly much that the employee left a job or jobs after a short time of being employed.