Comment by GoToRO
4 years ago
It's not about believing, it's about knowing. You have to couple that time interval with the company they worked for.
At one company it took them 2 weeks to set-up my email, 3 months to decide on which project to work on and in about 6 months I was delivering something. So 6 months "experience" actually meant zero. I was ready to deliver from day 1 but...
At another company I had all the accounts created by the end of day 1, already working on bugs the second day. Some projects took 1 month in total. 6 months could mean 6 projects. The amount of skills accumulated in that time was way over the skills accumulated at the first company.
As you can see the time interval is useless. I think it's fairer if the recruiter simply rolls a dice.
it seems you've presented a single data point, yourself, and decided that this universally applies, which seems unreasonable.
I think most people's experiences of onboarding in new companies are somewhere in between, thus the tenure length provides another data point.
Furthermore, some hiring managers look for people that stick around for various reasons, e.g. hiring in that company is difficult due to bureaucracy, so knowing that somebody was at a company for two years vs 1 month is an important data point.
It seems you’ve presented zero data points, and decided that this does not universally applies, which seems unreasonable.