LinkedIn And The Modern Employee
Photo by Alexander Shatov on Unsplash
LinkedIn is now giving people the option of adding a career break to their profiles. Instead of having an unexplained time gap between positions, you now have the option of adding a more specific (and appropriate) description of why you were in-between (traditional) jobs.
The options range from those we might expect (Full Time Parenting and Professional Development) to those we might not (Bereavement, Personal Goal Pursuit, Gap Year, Travel and Voluntary Work).
The point is that LinkedIn is trying to normalize these career “gaps” that are a normal part of life, but, frankly, employers have (explicitly and implicitly) frowned upon over the years. LinkedIn’s point is that these types of gaps are happening and it’s best to reflect the truth - so it’s better to be upfront about, and even “showcase”, our unique situations and experiences - instead of simply leaving the gap unstated (or worse, lying about it).
I’d love to hear how this new option is being adopted, and I’d understand if LinkedIn users were hesitant to do so. The fact is that career gaps are still seen by many employers (and perhaps candidates themselves) as a sign of weakness. And it’s worth considering why that is.
One rationale you’ll hear is that career gaps result in a lack of currency. These candidates are simply not up to speed with what’s been going on in their space and given the competitive nature of most markets, this results in a material disadvantage to the company if they were to hire the person.
Another rationale (usually unstated) is that career gaps are, in fact, representative of an issue with the candidate - that they were unable to keep their job (layoffs), don’t have their career map together (taking time off to do voluntary work), or have a lack of commitment (taking personal time), among others.
All of these assessments are taken through the lens of the employer and what matters to them in a very narrow sense, but it fails to account for the complete picture, for a few reasons.
The first is that this is the reality of life today. The age of the Company Man, when work was the organizing factor in our lives and there was a mutual contract between company and employee, is well and truly dead (though some folks such as Mark Benioff are trying to fix that). And, as a result, people need to look for meaning and continuity in their lives in different ways - not everyone will find that through traditional working models (aka defined career paths and jobs).
Second, there is a greater recognition of the ‘holistic’ nature of an employee i.e. they are not simply employees, rather they are people with multifaceted responsibilities and interests and needs in their lives. And as such, they are grappling with a wider range of issues today - mental and physical health concerns are more recognized and understood; alternative models for what constitutes a ‘family’ are better accepted; personal interests and requirements are taken more seriously.
The third is that these assessments fail to properly assess the personal characteristics of the individual and what they really bring to the table. We’re always quick to talk about how we’ll take tenacity and persistence over experience, but when the rubber meets the road and we’re faced with the choice between someone who shows us she has the dogged determination to get things done (but not the right credentials) versus someone who has the right resume (but perhaps less of the personal characteristics), we all know where our choice veers (because personal risk mitigation is a real thing).
For all of these reasons, then, we take the easy way out.
As employers, we use history as our primary guide when we should be doing the hard work of looking at the total individual.
We should be asking about their unique experiences and seeing how/if it makes them unique.
We should be assessing their individual and personal characteristics and understanding what that brings to the table for the role we’re trying to fill.
We should be looking at the complete person as a means of gauging if they can not only fill the role but also reinforce the company’s (desired) culture.
In short, we need to get over our own programming, instead giving them the benefit of the (our) doubt.
And as employees, I get that we prefer to hide the reality of our situation, because we’re (naturally) concerned about how it will look. I know it’s easier said than done, but we should strive to be more upfront about the realities we’ve dealt with. Identify what happened and how it made us better and stronger. There’s strength in that, that employers worth their salt should recognize.
The point is, the “traditional” career path is not entirely fit for purpose in today’s complex environment but we (employers and employees alike) haven’t all caught up with that fact, at least in practical terms. It’s time to change that.
