Ungap your mind

One does not need to be defensive about career gaps. And it need not always have a sentimental story justifying it.?

For example, if you were part of retrenchment, not your fault & finding another role could take time. It's a financial business decision mostly. So then, why do you get defensive, apologetic, or sensitive about it? It's because you fear recruiters might not understand. Yet it may not have any bearing on your ability or talent.?

If you were good to get hired there, you remain good to get hired elsewhere.

If you were let go because of performance management, it does not mean you won't do well elsewhere. History is replete with instances of people being average at one role & excelling in the other. Look around you. You will find most people have failed, or are continuing to fail in some capacity.?

Not to sugarcoat, but if failure as a word bothers you, try using the expression it did not work out. Means the same, but sounds softer I guess. Either way, it's time you stop thinking about what did not work and plan for what will work better??

It is appalling to see so much stigma attached to failure that it is almost akin to a crime. Yet the same people celebrate the failures of famous people. Some of the most successful leaders failed miserably enroute to success. So why discriminate against one person?

It's okay to fail. Remaining there is not.

Additionally, enabling someone to succeed in a role, is not just a responsibility for the immediate manager, but also for the ecosystem around you. If organizations think someone is doing the job, let them handle it alone, and it risks losing top talent. Then worry about rising attrition costs to the business.

It is abundantly clear, that supply exceeds demand in the job market. However the fine print is, can we say the same about the quality of talent? No. It's gasping for air at the moment. In the deluge of resumes finding a prospective employee who not only is eligible for the role but shows the right attitude, ethos, and passion is a forgone conclusion. People make do with what they get within the first 50 applications owing to time constraints.?

It becomes a cycle of mediocrity breeding more mediocrity.

So that you don't let your confidence hit rock bottom, remind yourself how you were hired? Going past 5 rigorous rounds of interviews, with different stakeholders and their unanimous agreement, critical insight, vast experience, people leaders, and opinion-makers in the company, thought you were the top talent, over 5 other shortlists, from a screening list of 30 applicants, out of a total of 300 applications for the job! What changed then? Of course, there is an argument to be made for having a wrong hiring process (tongue in cheek) but let's leave that for another day.

Finally, If you parted ways owing to integrity issues, it is a zero-tolerance zone. It begins with an acknowledgement of the mistake, paying a penalty for it, and introspecting ways to understand the real cause behind it. That being said, you do need to show how you changed with undeniable evidence not just now, but how will you ensure it does not happen again? Prove it with evidence of action taken. And then be mentally prepared to walk back slowly into the mainstream.?

You can heal. You can do better. To think of a world where people never change for the better is a fallacy.?Admittedly, these are easier said than done, but not impossible. Collectively getting into a doomsday-everything-is-going-to-hell attitude will not sow the seeds for change. Needless to say, It needs maturity in the system, be it recruitment, management, or peer levels. People need to invest in people for the best returns. We must remain optimists.

Question is, who is up for it?