频繁跳槽者并非都是坏员工

    如今就业市场依旧一片低迷，求职者人数往往多于职位空缺数，因此，雇主在筛选求职者的时候，很容易会将那些在十年内更换过五次工作的简历排除在外。

    在心理学中，有一条众所周知的真理：用过去的行为预测未来的行为是最有效的方法，所以，一个频繁跳槽的人，又怎么可能长期留在一个地方呢？

    不见得。

    明尼苏达大学（University of Minnesota）心理学教授克里斯托弗•莱克和鲍林格林大学（Bowling Green University）心理学教授斯科特•海尔豪斯对频繁跳槽的人进行了研究。他们发现，频繁跳槽的人有所差别。他们将这些人分为两组，分别是“逃避驱动型”和“进步驱动型”。莱克声称，前者“易冲动，缺乏毅力，常常沉浸于负面情绪。”相反，进步驱动型“能够自我指导，有取得成绩的强烈驱动力。这些人会积极寻找不同的责任和工作经验”——而他们可能正是你要寻找的新员工。

    问题在于，这两类人表面上看起来非常类似。因此招聘经理往往认为，凡是频繁跳槽的求职者都属于逃避驱动型。

    区分两者唯一的方式是：面试时，向他们提出正确的问题。莱克和海尔豪斯对来自各行各业每两年更换一次工作的500名员工进行了调查。两人将受访者的就业历史进行对比，并评估了他们整体的工作态度，“包括问他们认同或不认同有关职业的一系列观点。面试官不可能这么做——但他们可以问一些试探性的问题，弄清楚求职者离开上一份工作的真实原因，”莱克说道。

    要确认逃避驱动型频繁跳槽者，莱克建议：“要求面试者举一个他或她在挑战性超出预期的艰难情况下，依旧坚持下来并实现目标的例子。”进步驱动型求职者通常能够举出许多例子，而逃避驱动型却很可能连一个都想不出。

    此外，莱克建议，面试官应该从另外一个角度看待那些列出了多个之前岗位的简历。他说，“求职者每一次跳槽是否都取得了进步？是否每一份新工作都是为了更多的责任和更好的职务？逃避驱动型求职者会做出许多横向移动，而进步驱动型求职者的履历则显示出明显的上升趋势。”

    莱克补充道，在招聘进步驱动型频繁跳槽者时，唯一需要注意的是：由于这类求职者到目前为止一直在寻找更大、更好的工作机会，因此，你的公司和职务空缺是否真的适合他或她？如果你能提供的职业道路，在未来可能会涌现更宽广、更有趣的机会，那么你的公司或许将是该类“职场浪子”的真正归宿。（财富中文网）

    翻译：刘进龙/汪皓

    In a job market still struggling to recover from the doldrums, applicants often outnumber openings, so it’s tempting to narrow the field by turning thumbs down on anyone whose resume lists, say, five job changes in a decade.

    It’s a psychological truism that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so people with a history of job hopping probably won’t stay anywhere for long—right?

    Not necessarily.

    When Christopher Lake, who teaches psychology at the University of Minnesota, and co-researcher Scott Highhouse, a psychology professor at Bowling Green University, got together to study people who change employers frequently, they found that job hoppers are not all alike.They identified two main groups, which they call “escape-driven” and “advancement-driven.” The former “tend to be impulsive and lack persistence, and are often fixated on negative emotions,” says Lake. By contrast, the advancement-driven group “is self-directed and has a strong drive toward achievement. These are people who actively seek out a variety of responsibilities and work experiences”—and could be the new hires you’re looking for.

    The trouble is that, at a glance, both types look similar. So hiring managers often assume that any applicant with a history of jumping around is escape-driven.

    The only way to tell the difference: Ask the right interview questions. In their research with about 500 employees in various industries who had changed jobs every couple of years, Lake and Highhouse compared people’s employment histories and gauged their overall attitudes toward work, “including asking them to agree or disagree with a long list of statements about careers,” says Lake. “Interviewers aren’t going to do that—but they can certainly ask probing questions about why the candidate left previous employers.”

    One way to identify an escape-driven job hopper, Lake suggests: “Ask him or her to tell you an example of persevering in a difficult situation, one that was more challenging than expected, and accomplishing a goal in spite of that.” An advancement-driven job hopper will usually come up with several instances, while the escape-driven variety may be hard-pressed to think of one.

    Lake also recommends taking a second look at a resume that lists several previous positions. “Did the person advance each time they moved? Look for a trend toward more responsibility and a better title with each new job,” he says. “Escape-driven job hoppers tend to make a lot of lateral moves, while growth-oriented people’s experience shows a clear upward trend.”

    The only caveat when hiring an advancement-driven job hopper, Lake adds: Since this person has sought out bigger and better jobs up until now, is your organization, and the position you’re trying to fill, the right fit? If you’re able to offer a career path leading to broader and more interesting opportunities in the future, he says, a person with a history of job hopping could finally be ready to stick around.