...even if only temporary?
Thats what I read and here from those who are hiring, recruiting or are unemployed and desperately seeking re-employment.
For Managers, Junior Execs/Sr. Managers or higher, what damage is done to our resume' track when we take a job that is chronologically backwards and less than our progressive skillset...BECAUSE the high level jobs are so scarce?
I was sent to an interview for a job that was 30% less salaried and 15 years behind my history (Midlevel Manager vs. Dept Director). No matter how well I professed to be willing and energetic for the job, the VP interviewing me even stated he had a problem believing I would go backwards in my career. I did not play the economic sympathy card at all.
I dont see much discussion here (or cant find it if it is here) about the extreme lack of jobs available and the different posture it is putting on the search from an MT perspective. Its almost like this MT population is in denial or refusing to verbalize it.
I can imagine the response here being the savior is having an immaculate network to pull opportunities from. In my area/industry, I know 15 President/CEO level people personally, and have connections to at least 60 and at a monthly networking event, and in personal conversations, they are all scared for their own careers. Not only is there an across the company hiring freeze, executives are laying off their directs and taking on those responsibilities in addition to their own.
Any comments are appreciated, but specifically, any paycheck is better than none, or is it really? Whats wrong with this view?
Thanks for tolerating the rant.