In some ways the system is a little bit rigged, too. And you are correct in recognizing that. Maybe "rigged" isn't the right word, but there's a definite positive feedback loop (which helps explain why so many top executives can fail upward in this country and probably your country also, lol, but I digress).
You need experience to become a good candidate for a good job. But you sort of need that good job first to get the good experience to become a good candidate. It's cyclical.
Volunteering can be a great thing, especially if you can explain how it has enhanced your skills in certain areas. But volunteering is only a supplement to your jobs and work history, not a substitute for working a paid job at a given point in time (there are certainly some exceptions like when you go on multi-year missions/trips/projects out of the country and can't really work while doing that).
Everyone needs some sort of breakthrough or someone to take a chance on them at some point in time--a lot of times this happens when you're fresh out (just getting out of college or grad school and whatnot). Or maybe there's a friend of a friend/family member/professor/colleague to help get you in the front door. Of course you can stack the deck in your favor as well by having really well-thought-out application materials and interviewing well and having a plan of attack, but you need to even get to the interview in the first place to be able to ingratiate yourself.
All we're saying is that having a track record of being steady/having worked at some places for many months/years communicates a lot to a potential employer about you. Fairly or unfairly. You still could be a terrible worker but have held the same job for a while, but that's usually not the case. That longevity is something that people who are considering making an investment in someone (HR, salary, benefits, training, important responsibilities) really want to dream on when trying to find the right person. Nobody wants to hire someone, then poof this person is terrible and now gone, and have to start the hiring process all over again in 3 months.
Some positions are short-term by design. But you don't want to fill up on those alone. Unless you've got absolutely no other options due to your location and lack of relevant jobs in the area. Some people in this boat move. Others change industries. Others try to fight through it for a few years before hopefully it paying off. Short-term is preferable to having nothing especially if you need to put food on the table! But, yes, in some ways taking a job in a slightly different field to establish some good work history is better than bouncing around and going temp thing to 4 week thing to 2 month thing. And to be honest, these short jobs aren't necessarily going to be any more relevant to your career anyway, right? I'm guessing some have been pretty random? Like the one you said is a one day job? Going out of your field a little bit is something that you can easily explain in an interview, but being able to put Job X - 1 year, Job Y - 18 months, Job Z - 3 years (great resume I have here, huh?) says a lot to a potential employer about you.
Ultimately it's your choice what you apply to and how to go about it and all the advice in the world isn't gonna change that.
Comment