Will a 6 month job look bad with otherwise long term resume?

[Anonymous]

I've been in a role for 6 months and am considering restarting my search, but wondering if it will reflect poorly enough to disqualify me from opportunities.

My job length history is:
3 years
3 years
6 years
Currently 6 months

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

It’s legitimate to say that a job was not what you thought it would be/company wasn’t a good fit, especially with your other longer stints.

[Anonymous]

From personal experience (and network LinkedIn stalking) I think you get passes for 2 short jobs every 10 years. Just an observation.

[Anonymous]

No not at all. There are a lot of contract type jobs in this area. It's really the best way to learn new systems and new skills. I actually look more negatively on people who have stayed somewhere for 15+ years. I believe they have coasted for at least the last 10 of those.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think a single short stint is a problem on a resume with otherwise long term stays.

But I don’t think your resume has long term stays. If I saw your resume, I would see three short stints and one borderline long term job that I would wonder if it was long enough to vest in you as an employee.

That said, I work in an industry with high entrance requirements and knowledge requirements, and most hires don’t start to bring value until the two year mark. If you’re in a career where you bring any value for a three year stint, my best advice is to find a better skill set - because otherwise you’ll be unemployable by 45.

[Anonymous]

It would look worse to have a gap, plus it’s a matter of record. I’d include it.

[Anonymous]

I think you’re fine. The other jobs are long term enough to not appear like job hopping.

[Anonymous]

I think you’re fine too.

My history is 10 months, 2.5 years, and 6 years: currently applying again and haven’t had issues.

A resume like this wouldn’t give me pause.

[Anonymous]

I had 3 jobs in five years due to layoff, bad fit and a move. No one has thrown shade at me about it and I am VP level.

[Anonymous]

I finished grad school in 2020 and am on job #4. Longest is 1.5 years, a couple under 1 year.

It really hasn’t been brought up.

[Anonymous]

I'd start looking in a few months and leave at the year mark if you can. I just got hired for a new position and got asked questions about job changes, longer ones than yours.

Spend a few months thinking about next steps, where you want to be in 5 years, if more skills are needed to get there, etc. Also, max out any benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a single short stint is a problem on a resume with otherwise long term stays.

But I don’t think your resume has long term stays. If I saw your resume, I would see three short stints and one borderline long term job that I would wonder if it was long enough to vest in you as an employee.

That said, I work in an industry with high entrance requirements and knowledge requirements, and most hires don’t start to bring value until the two year mark. If you’re in a career where you bring any value for a three year stint, my best advice is to find a better skill set - because otherwise you’ll be unemployable by 45.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a single short stint is a problem on a resume with otherwise long term stays.

But I don’t think your resume has long term stays. If I saw your resume, I would see three short stints and one borderline long term job that I would wonder if it was long enough to vest in you as an employee.

That said, I work in an industry with high entrance requirements and knowledge requirements, and most hires don’t start to bring value until the two year mark. If you’re in a career where you bring any value for a three year stint, my best advice is to find a better skill set - because otherwise you’ll be unemployable by 45.

This is silly. It's entirely industry dependent. Even senior ppl in tech are viewed as getting stale if they stay longer than 4 years.

[Anonymous]

If I were looking at resumes I’d notice it. If you were highly qualified but so were — I don’t know — say 5 more candidates? I probably wouldn’t interview you. If it was hard to find people with your skill set, I would interview you and ask about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a single short stint is a problem on a resume with otherwise long term stays.

But I don’t think your resume has long term stays. If I saw your resume, I would see three short stints and one borderline long term job that I would wonder if it was long enough to vest in you as an employee.

That said, I work in an industry with high entrance requirements and knowledge requirements, and most hires don’t start to bring value until the two year mark. If you’re in a career where you bring any value for a three year stint, my best advice is to find a better skill set - because otherwise you’ll be unemployable by 45.

This is silly. It's entirely industry dependent. Even senior ppl in tech are viewed as getting stale if they stay longer than 4 years.

Great example. Because tech is infamous as the least friendly industry to people over age 50. By 45, you’re getting stale. So year, two year job hops for 20 years in tech, and you’re pretty unemployable. Hence the suggestion to pick another industry.

Or don’t be surprised when you can find a job at age 45.