Most of us still hold to our parents' advice to stay put in jobs for a year at the very least. While some bosses and human resource personnel think that skipping jobs are forgivable, realistically speaking, long-term jobs look better on a resume as opposed to five different jobs lasting a month each, even if you say you've gained a lot of experience from those five companies. It's simple logic, really: A longer period at a certain company means you've been loyal to the company, which instantly earns you plus points when you're out seeking greener pastures. Longevity also shows how much you've improved your skills, especially if your resume indicates several promotions you've had in a single company. Also, bosses tend to favor someone who's worked with another company for a long time over a potential employee who has a tendency to jump ship so they can lessen turnover rates and save more money that way.
Of course, that doesn't mean we can rule out short term jobs completely. After all, shorter periods also have benefits such as more varied experiences, choices for weighing better salaries and benefits, possibly more contacts, and opportunities that might be hard to come by if you stay with a single company for too long.
If you were given a choice, which of the two would you choose?
0 Comments
Add Comment