For most of my career, while hiring, I held a bias in favour of professionals who had stable tenures. It was perhaps influenced by my own career or the kind of organisations I worked for, where people had long tenures. I still stumble every time I interview someone who has had frequent job changes. Some questions spring to mind:

* Is the candidate a poor evaluator of his/her career?

* WiIl s/he throw in the towel with the first problem s/he faces?

* Is s/he the sort who cannot ‘hit the ground running’ – and is that why s/he had to quit or was eased out?

* Does the candidate have a short leash of attention, and does s/he get bored fast?

People tell me stability is dead and talent is everything, and that nowadays nobody believes in tenure and workplace loyalty. A short tenure doesn’t matter so long as the employee is productive. The argument is that in today’s world of temps, freelancers, consultants, why wouldn’t you consider shorter tenures? If you can bring this context, it sort of makes sense. Yet, there aren’t too many organisations with a significant number of freelancers/temps/consultants – unless it’s a Bollywood movie producer.

What does stability really mean?

* Is it about working in a single company till you are the resident raconteur recalling when the company bought its first piece of furniture and when it installed its internet connection?

* Is it about jokingly telling head-hunters that your resume requires some heavy-duty dusting since you last updated it a decade ago?

* Is it about accepting all the boring new assignments your employers throw at you because you couldn’t take the hint that you’d be put in cold storage if you don’t quit?

* Is it a reflection of the fact that your collection of work anniversary certificates is the size of a book?

Does it mean we should start recruiting people who are on skates, who move into and out of organisations like they are sweeping through a string of revolving doors, with an average tenure of barely months? That depends. Horses for courses, said one of my bosses when I saw him recruiting a frequent mover. He needed somebody to accept a role that no one was willing to take on. So, he hired a ‘rolling stone’, one who had gathered “enough moss” to get the job done well. In that particular case, it worked.

Some people with frequent career changes also hit the ground running, as they are used to changes and the expectations that come with new employers. Candidates who change jobs after long tenures with previous employers are ‘high maintenance’ for their new managers. They expect a longer runway for take-off, more pampering during the on-boarding process and are less adaptable to new situations.

The ‘stability’ bias Predictive analysis suggests that people tend to repeat their behaviour patterns. On that count, it doesn’t make sense to hire skaters: they will skate away. And while we may say we are hiring based on a candidate’s potential, in reality, we have a separate yardstick when it comes to tenure. It stems from a social ecosystem that values stability, be it in relationships or employment tenures.

Stability is clearly still a treasured trait for most traditional interviewers. But it appears to me that the premium commanded by a stable tenure is now fading slowly.

The question to ponder is this: if a CV for a leadership role reflects eight job changes in 15 years, and another marks three changes in the same period, which of the two candidates would you pick? You might say it depends on the person. But the harsh fact is that in most cases, the CVs of candidates on skates don’t even land in the interviewer’s inbox unless they have been propelled along by a friend or a former colleague.

(The author was till recently Managing Director of Kelly Services & Kelly OCG India, and is now pursuing his entrepreneurial dreams. He is a commentator on workplace dynamics.)

Related Topics