Trying to pass 9 different jobs in 3 years as "hyperfocus on dumb details" and equivalent to being fired is not really a fair judgement.

I've been part of interview processes in some companies, and while I would not care about a couple of holes or being fired once or twice, I would definitely care about 9 jobs in 3 years.

It shows either that the person is hard to work with, and in this case I'd rather have someone else, or that the person prefers to jump ship very often, and in this case I'd rather not pay the price of onboarding.

> Trying to pass 9 different jobs in 3 years as "hyperfocus on dumb details"

I’m constantly baffled by HN assertions that nothing should matter in an interview.

If 3 early terminations and 9 jobs in 3 years are “dumb details” then I don’t even know what these people would consider relevant when it comes to work history.

Juxtapose this with the “Ask HN” posts from people asking how to deal with incompetent or difficult coworkers, where the response is usually a chorus of “GTFO”.

Like you said, there’s a reason hiring managers focus on these details: It’s because we have to protect the team, and bringing in someone who has a history of causing problems or failing to deliver puts everybody at risk.

It's 9 jobs in 3 years including two contracting gigs and six years ago. People change in 6 years.

Yes, people change in 6 years, and I would probably not consider it a strong bad signal anymore in 2022, given the following experiences.

But in 2017, if I actually need someone in because we're a small structure and recruiting errors are costly ? I'll definitely go for a less risky candidate.

It could also show that they aren't willing to put up with shit work environments.

Once or twice, yeah sure.

9 times in 3 years, it at best means that you're really really bad at judging and picking workplaces.

But from the outside, if out of 9 places all are shitty, the problem might not be the workplaces.

> It doesn't matter at all.

> If you're the type of employer to hyperfocus on dumb details like this, then we're all better off not working for you.

I’m sorry, but evaluating candidates like this is the entire point of the interview process.

You’re also massively downplaying what’s going on here: I’m not referring to a single termination a long time ago after working somewhere for a long time, I’m referring to the pattern of firings within the first 3 months.

Firing someone within the first 3 months of a job is extremely rare. Two of these happened with a little more than one month on the job. I don’t know if I’ve ever worked at a company that fired anyone that early for anything other than flagrant workplace violations, which is why it’s a big deal to have one early firing on your resume, let alone 3.

I’m sorry, but these aren’t dumb details. I think you’re forgetting that the hiring process isn’t just about protecting the company, it’s about protecting the team. It’s also the hiring manager’s job to screen for someone who might have interpersonal issues or a failure to deliver results in a workplace environment that would negatively impact the team.

Do you perform background checks? What do you do when criminal charges show up? What if they're mundane like possession of marijuana?

Screening people is fine, but the signal here is incredibly weak -- so weak I wouldn't even look back that far. It's one thing if a person has never held a job for more than three months in ten years. Sure, lots of red flags. But the example here is not remotely noteworthy.

If I was the hiring manager skimming this resume I'd assume they were either in a bad place in life (I've lived in situations which made work incredibly difficult) or were perhaps going through something (illness, addiction (which is an illness)) or perhaps just ended up at a few consecutive shitty gigs, which statistically speaking is incredibly likely: most jobs are shitty. I wouldn't even give this a second thought.

The hiring process is all about gathering signal. Will this person be a good fit? Will they succeed? The things you are focusing on do not indicate in any way those things. If you disagree, then you are deeply misguided and I would run, very quickly, away from anything resembling employment at your company.

Figuring out the answers to "will this person do a good job?" and "are they still going to be here in a couple months?" aren't dumb details. It's literally the point of the interview process.

Your cynical view regarding hiring at med-large firms doesn't explain how terminations aren't an important detail of someone's career.