I point this out to make you reconsider a bit whether you might be putting pressure in the wrong place. It’s an easy mistake to make, and one I’ve made many times.

If I'm hiring you I need to assess three things:

- Can you do the work I need done?

- Do you want to do the work I need done for the time I need you to do it? (flight risk)

- Will you work well with others on the team?

In all of those answers I'm looking for: Will this person own their story and do I believe them?

I'd add a 4th though -

Of the pool of successful applicants (there are usually more than one that satisfies your 3 points) are you feeling lucky? Often we have multiple candidates who would be perfect for a job, but ultimately only one post.

At the end of the day we pick one, and often it's more-or-less a coin flip one way or another.

Sometimes you just need a big of luck ..

I was laid off and was looking is an acceptable answer. Discretionary quitting and shitting on your prior employer is a red flag.

Larger companies' hiring process is all about de-risking you and screening out problems. They can only de-risk so much based on a resume, and it's more rare to have someone with 10+ years and zero gaps.

If a job candidate responded that they spent time between jobs playing TOTK without some levity layered on, I'd be concerned and ask further questions to see if they're a flight risk or in the right head space to join my team.

It's a yellow flag to me.

The trouble with this kind of situation is that you’ll have to pull apart two forces: one, the underlying assumption that most employees won’t leave within a couple years anyway (“flight risk”) and two, that something matters beyond whether someone is capable of doing their job professionally. “Head space” pries a bit far into someone’s personal life.

It’s a business transaction. Attempting to frame it as more than that always struck me as strange.

But! Being able to agree to disagree is part of the equation — the wonderful thing about companies is that there are so many of them, and it only takes one empathetic hiring manager to recognize skill rather than feelings.

> it only takes one empathetic hiring manager to recognize skill rather than feelings.

IMHO, you're overlooking the obvious.

I can't possibly go into the back corners of your mind during an interview process. But, I can get some datapoints on your headspace with how you compose responses about your profile and story.

My point is candidates need to sell themselves and take some risks on how to present themselves to their employer. All else equal, positive framing is better and increases your chances of getting hired at "more" of the "many" companies.

Good luck on finding your next career step.

I think it’s fine to agree to disagree. I talked with my hiring manager friend and she said one of their strongest hires said he hasn’t been doing shit for the prior year, and that he’d been super burned out after his last job. She said cool, what do you want to do now? And the rest was history.

Your philosophy does cause you to miss out on strong candidates, though.

Respectfully, no, and I don't think we're disagreeing, but are talking past each other.

[edit: I am supportive of (and share) your mindset that it's constructive to go on a case by case basis and look closer at candidates.]

What I'm proposing doesn't necessarily limit cases. Anecdotally, I've hired people that took long breaks with similar burnout stories and upside.

The fact that your anecdotal hiring success story starts with the "burnout" making it to the hiring interview is statistically very favorable for that candidate, the candidate was pre-qualified by the hiring manager, the candidate was interested enough in the position to interview, and it was a matter of fit.

They've already MOVED PAST the gap in your resume issue. Going back to the original comment, you didn't address (as in your original critique) as to whether the candidate had some explanation for their time. Maybe they didn't and still got/passed the interview? Who knows.