Same material, on video. The article below is the written version.
For years, most of us hiring managers have held a certain unflappable opinion. If a person has been employed by more than one or two companies in a five-year time period or less, we probably shouldn't hire them. We've seen this as a sign of someone who can't commit, a perpetual job hopper who will leave your company the second they find a better offer, and we assume they'll always be looking. Why waste our time training up a person like this if they're only going to apply those skills at another company?
I think we need to rethink this and set aside these assumptions (which I certainly admit have probably been well founded in the past). We must accept that the world has changed. Seeing lots of short-term jobs on a resume may simply mean the candidate has only been able to find contract work, rather than indicating some kind of character flaw. There is no shame in contract work. In fact, these days companies are relying more and more on short to mid-term contracts to help fill out the roster in order to complete important projects. While there are still many full-time jobs for technical personnel, there is no doubt these are diminishing. You may also need to consider the economic environment. Was there a big economic downturn during the time period in question? If so, the candidate might have just been unlucky and been caught up in across-the-board layoffs. Since many companies prioritize layoffs based on tenure, a candidate could simply be caught in a viscous cycle that has nothing to do with their abilities or devotion.
So, how do we spot the difference? First and foremost, give them a chance to interview and then use some of the other techniques I've talked about in previous articles. But perhaps the most obvious sign is to look to see if the person has included words like "contract" or "contract-to-hire" on their position listings or see if you recognize the employer as one of the popular staffing agencies. During the interview just ask them directly. An opener like, "I noticed you've had several shorter roles. Can you walk me through what was driving those transitions?" works well. It amazes me how many hiring managers are reluctant to be that direct, but if you ask in a polite, non-confrontational way, there won't be an issue.
You can also look for long-term anchor points. What do I mean by this? If the candidate has a long-term engagement somewhere in their history, but has only had short-term engagements recently, that might be a sign that all they've been able to find is contract work. Why not give them a chance to interview?
We can also think of this from the opposite perspective. Imagine you're a job seeker who has only been able to find short-term work. It's hard to plan your life around that, to make decisions about your future, to feel financially secure. Now, that person sees the chance to snag a job that they can grow into and offers an actual opportunity to advance their career. There's a chance that person is going to be more loyal than other employees, not less. They've already struggled with the uncertainty of having to justify their professional existence every year, and they'll do whatever it takes to not have to go back to that.
The point is, don't give up on the person too early just because you see some red flags in their resume. Dig a little deeper to find the root cause so that you can make the best choice possible.