Q. Recently I decided to update my resume, for the simple reason that I hadn't done so in a few years and I had some time on my hands over the holidays. However I noticed a pattern: In my 20-year career I've taken a new position every couple of years or so, primarily because I was offered a better job, more responsibility and more money.
I used to look at those moves as vital career experiences and evidence of being able to shift gears at a
ASK JOE A QUESTION
|
To get your question answered on this page, send it to Joe. Please include your full name in your message. If you prefer that your surname not be published, please indicate that. Sign up to receive Ask the Recruiter by e-mail. (sent Monday-Friday at 8 a.m.) |
|
moment's notice, since some of the publications had luxury audiences and others were more middle of the road. Now I am middle-aged and wondering if my moves have made me damaged goods as far as any potential employers might be concerned.
What is more important in a career? The breadth and depth of experience that a varied resume shows, or the stability that staying put, and a shorter resume, imply?
Sincerely,
Hop, Skip, JumpA. There are hoppers and there are stoppers. Each type has its pluses and minuses. The fact that you can look at each of your moves and give a good reason for them tells me that your pattern is not fatal. It might even be good in an age where it is so important to be adaptable and to learn new skills.
Unimaginative and unambitious newsrooms may want to hire people who they think will stay for 20 years. The sharp ones value skills more than staying power.
It may be that you much prefer the latter type. Any newsroom that can get two or three years of hard work out of you should be content with that. A really good one will keep you longer.
I wouldn't worry.
Coming Tuesday: This student has landed an internship and is now asking what she can do to be a true standout in a newsroom that promises to be competitive.
