FW: Short duration on jobs

[Tracey Moore <traceym -at- APPLIEDMAPPING -dot- COM>]

My cousin is a high-up mucky-muck in a high tech company in Atlanta, and he says he's actually suspicious of people who've stayed in one place more than three years. He's concerned they won't be up-to-speed on the latest technology or that they won't have the flexibility to go with the flow. (Of course, he himself doesn't stay put for very long either. . .)

Right or wrong, just goes to show you that there's always another opinion. Personally, I've never had anyone question me once I gave a reason for the short duration (i.e., "it was a contract position, the contract ended").

----------
From:   David Orr
Sent:   Wednesday, December 02, 1998 1:55 PM
To:     TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject:        Re: Short duration on jobs

I received many replies about the unfairness of using short duration on
jobs as a criterion for screening resumes. These replies have pointed
out several facts:

1. Corporate downsizing and bankruptcies account for many short-term
jobs.
2. In certain fast-paced areas of the country, corporate recruiters may
actually view long-term job stays as "grass growing under the feet."

I think these facts are compelling and will certainly influence my
decisions. To be defensive for a moment, job duration is only one of
several criteria we use, and by no means eliminates someone if most of
the other criteria are met.

David Orr
Orr & Associates


===========================================================================


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000