I used to judge candidates with short stints on their resumes.
Three months here. Six months there. A year at one company, then gone. I’d look at that pattern and wonder: can this person actually commit? Do they have the discipline to push through when things get hard?
I was wrong.
I hired a data engineer named Tim1Not his real name, obviously … a few years back. He was outstanding and had exactly the unique experience we needed to support a new product line. He interviewed well and the team loved him! I offered him the role immediately. The catch was that he’d need to relocate from Utah to Portland to work in the office. He asked for a month to handle the move. I happily gave it to him.
During his first week in Portland, everything fell apart. the Vice President responsible for the entire product line was unexpectedly and suddenly terminated by our new CEO. We had to interrupt Tim’s onboarding so he could join a “we’ll figure this out” pep talk with the team.
A week later, the CEO decided to shutter the product line entirely. I was told to let my team go. This impacted not just Tim but the 15 other engineers working in that division as well.
Tim called his old boss and asked for his job back. I weighed in and encouraged it. Thankfully, they took him.
He’s never counted that two-week stint with me on his resume. I don’t blame him. But had he not been able to return to his old job, he would’ve been unemployed. Through absolutely no fault of his own.
A friend recently confided in me about their job search:
My goal is to try to find somewhere to sit for two years due to scrutiny of my “short stints.” Control what I can though. Now people seem to be expecting 2+ years to not be job hopper, it seems. Which is wild given all the layoffs.
Wild is the right word.
We’ve spent the last few years watching tech companies lay off thousands of workers. Engineers who joined in good faith, performed their roles well, and got cut when the financial winds shifted. Many of them didn’t even make it to their one-year anniversary. Their employers just couldn’t cut it.
And now those same engineers face scrutiny for having “short stints” on their resumes.
I was recently on the receiving end of this sentiment as well. I’d applied for a solid role and was rejected a few days layer. Thankfully, the hiring manager took the time to reach out and explain what was missing in my background that caused them to pass:
More than 2 years of tenure at the same place — It’s important for our Product Engineers to have experienced the consequences of their decisions, iterated based on those consequences, and honed their judgment for future decisions. We believe the outcomes of the most challenging engineering work sometimes take years to shake out.
I appreciate the transparency. And there’s validity in wanting engineers who’ve seen the long-term impact of their work. But this framing assumes that short stints are always a choice. It ignores the reality that many of us have lived.
I’ve made intentional moves throughout my career — to learn a new skill, master a specific technology, challenge myself in a new way. Those decisions resulted in 2-5 year tenures at most roles. Deliberate, strategic, growth-oriented.
But I’ve also been the manager who created holes in other people’s resumes. I’ve sat across from talented engineers and told them their position was eliminated. I’ve watched good people pack their desks because of decisions made levels above my head.
The tenure myth assumes a level of control that most employees simply don’t have.
It assumes that if you left after a year, you weren’t committed. That if you didn’t stick around for two years, you never experienced the consequences of your decisions. That short stints reflect something about your character rather than your circumstances.
Tim didn’t leave after two weeks because he lacked commitment. My friend isn’t job hopping because they can’t buckle down. The thousands of engineers laid off in the last few years aren’t leaving because flaky. Circumstances require navigating an industry that treats employees as expendable.
I’ve learned something important being on both sides of this equation. Tenure tells you how long someone stayed. It tells you very little about what they learned, what they built, or what they’re capable of.
Some of the sharpest engineers I’ve worked with had resumes that looked “choppy” on paper. Some of the least effective had been at the same company for a decade.
Correlation isn’t causation.
Time spent doesn’t equal experience gained.
Course Correction
If you’re hiring, I’d encourage you to ask why someone left rather than just when. Dig into what they learned in those six months. Ask about the decisions they made and what happened next — even if “next” was at a different company.
If you’re job searching with short stints on your resume, own your story. Explain the context. The right employer will understand that layoffs aren’t character flaws. Reach out directly to the hiring manager; don’t wait for them to connect the dots between your roles.
Finally if you’re a manager, remember: you might be the one creating those gaps in someone else’s resume. The tenure requirements we enforce on candidates might one day exclude the very people we let go.
I used to judge candidates with short stints. Now I know better.
What assumptions are you holding onto that deserve a second look?
- 1Not his real name, obviously …
