If a candidate committed to a 3-year contract instead of a permanent job, as a client would you accept it?
In a volatile market with fewer skills than opportunities many Digital, Marketing, Ecommerce & Communications candidates are bringing the average position tenure down with moves every 12 months (earlier in some cases).
This has become widely accepted in the market but no less disruptive to clients attempting to get projects delivered and losing critical skill sets along the way. Both costly and distracting for any focused team is there another way? 1-year and even 2-year contracts are common practice but would 3 work for both parties?
As a client would you get more out of a candidate committing to a 3-year contract? And yes, I know they could leave sooner for something else anyway however if the delivery of successful projects meant a project completion bonus at regular intervals could you retain them longer, get more out of them and motivate them to contribute until the end?
I’ve seen specific ‘deliverables’ in the market around PPC, SEO, Social, Events, Content, UX & Analytics perhaps a 3-year contract is too long for some of these projects however taking on an individual for that amount of time would certainly ensure the board/management team were committed to 3 years’ worth of delivery rather than hiring someone for that area ‘just in-case’!
Clients are forever telling me they don’t want ‘jumpy’ CVs, however the reality is in a project-based market, such as digital & marketing, there will always be those candidates who move on prematurely but is there something that can be done to help both parties?
Candidates in a job heavy market always hold the ‘ace’ regardless, however would this potentially convince you to stay longer, contribute, achieve and prosper? Or would the thought of not being in a permanent job be just too risky for some?
The 3-year contract – a problem solver or creator?