CV impact - 3 months contract after 6 months off

[Damon]

Programme/Project Manager roles.

Would it cause you concern if you were reviewing a CV which had a 3 months contract after a 6 month time off 'gap'.

I think it would catch my eye and I'd ask about it but not reject CV based on it.

Not sure I can manage the 6 months on this current gig and will start looking at 3 months in.

[Old Greg]

Programme/Project Manager roles.

Would it cause you concern if you were reviewing a CV which had a 3 months contract after a 6 month time off 'gap'.

I think it would catch my eye and I'd ask about it but not reject CV based on it.

Not sure I can manage the 6 months on this current gig and will start looking at 3 months in.

Not answering your question but really small point. Try to have your last day on project as 1st of month, not last day of month. It will make the contract look a month longer - in your case a third longer. I also try to start contracts on last day of month and not 1st day of month if possible.

However, 3 months is not good for a PM role. I do PM and other work, and the small bits of consultancy can acceptably be a few weeks. A PM contract of < 6 months looks like a firing or bailout unless you can badge it convincingly otherwise. E.g. I have done a genuine 4 month PM contract which involved turnaround of a failing project to complete design and build, then test and manage cutover.

[Dallas]

Lack of longevity as a PM looks like you are either doing minor bug-fixy projects or you cant deliver. A couple of these back to back with big gaps inbetween and you'd be on the 'No' pile.

[Old Greg]

Lack of longevity as a PM looks like you are either doing minor bug-fixy projects or you cant deliver. A couple of these back to back with big gaps inbetween and you'd be on the 'No' pile.

Therefore, unless you're suicidal, stick it out.

[DirtyDog]

Lack of longevity as a PM looks like you are either doing minor bug-fixy projects or you cant deliver. A couple of these back to back with big gaps inbetween and you'd be on the 'No' pile.

Unless you are brought in to turn around a failing project two months before the go-live, turned it around, saw it live and then left.

In which case you look like a great troubleshooter who can perform under pressure and get quick results.

I suspect that this is not the case with the current project for the OP though.

[Damon]

Agreed hence my question.

The difficulty comes when you are recruited for role A, get contract, walk in the door go to meeting with business and are announced as leading Role Z and I use the Z to emphasise how far removed it is from Role A. If the market was more fluid and I hadn't used 6 months of war chest I would have left day 1.

I would approach the situation as role mismatch but given client need I worked for 3 months to get them to a good place before looking for another contract with Role A.

Not ideal but making the best of a poor situation.

[Old Greg]

Agreed hence my question.

The difficulty comes when you are recruited for role A, get contract, walk in the door go to meeting with business and are announced as leading Role Z and I use the Z to emphasise how far removed it is from Role A. If the market was more fluid and I hadn't used 6 months of war chest I would have left day 1.

I would approach the situation as role mismatch but given client need I worked for 3 months to get them to a good place before looking for another contract with Role A.

Not ideal but making the best of a poor situation.

Given that you understandably didn't walk on Day 1, you should stick it out IMO.

[DirtyDog]

Given that you understandably didn't walk on Day 1, you should stick it out IMO.

That would be my take - you won't be able to explain it as "I was expecting one role and it turned out to be another completely different one" without looking incompetent for not noticing how different the roles were.

So, if you can't sell yourself as a troubleshooter with success on this project, I'd stick it out.

[Damon]

T without looking incompetent for not noticing how different the roles were.

I understand your point but I did notice the difference! It was just announced to 30 people in the room without being discussed with me, it took all my control not to spit my coffee out all over them

It's an 'interesting' place to work!

[Old Greg]

I understand your point but I did notice the difference! It was just announced to 30 people in the room without being discussed with me, it took all my control not to spit my coffee out all over them

It's an 'interesting' place to work!

Suck it up (not the coffee).