We’re kicking off a series where bold HR voices get featured! 💡
Drop your take on the topic below — TOP 3 most thought-provoking, unique, or passionate responses will be spotlighted on our social media (with credit, of course!).
“Rejecting a candidate just because they job-hopped twice in 3 years — is it fair or outdated?”
We know this touches a nerve. As recruiters and HRs, we juggle stability vs. potential every day.
🔹 FOR – Yes, job-hopping shows lack of commitment. We need stable hires.
🔹 AGAINST – No, it reflects adaptability and growth. Let's not penalize ambition.
💬 Drop your stance below, and let’s open the floor for a real discussion.
Your insights might just shift someone’s hiring perspective.
“Rejecting a candidate just because they job-hopped twice in 3 years — is it fair or outdated?”
0%Yes, job-hopping shows lack of commitment.
0%No, it reflects adaptability and growth.
A break is situational and would have a story to it. Talk, discuss ask before any opinion is made. When talent matters and what it brings to the table... Tenure is time frame required for execution of task. However, we cannot generalize it..It would matter for which post/JD/KRA that the hiring is going to take place.