What is the primary historical concern employers cite regarding candidates with numerous short job stints?
Answer
Concerns about return on investment
The hesitation from employers traditionally stems from the financial and time investment involved in recruiting, onboarding, and training a new employee, which is lost if the hire leaves quickly.
Related Questions
What is the primary historical concern employers cite regarding candidates with numerous short job stints?What is often cited as the most apparent financial benefit of frequently changing jobs?In which environments might showing a breadth of experience across different technologies be viewed as a positive indicator?What do Gen Z workers typically prioritize over tenure alone when viewing a job?What specific risk is signaled when a résumé shows a consistent pattern of leaving jobs every six to twelve months?What is the core distinction that separates a successful 'career climber' from a 'flaky employee'?What is the recommended minimum tenure an individual should aim for in a role to establish a strong professional achievement?What non-compensation benefit does frequent job movement offer for skill development?What reason, other than performance issues, do self-described 'serial job hoppers' often give for leaving previous roles?During periods like the Great Resignation, why were hiring managers often compelled to hire candidates with frequent job changes?