[victords]

> Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired?

Why is the assumption not the opposite?

"This person failed at 8 companies" vs "This person was success at one for almost three decades"?

Why is it a sign of success if you are at a company for a short stay before going to the next? If anything, I'd imagine that a short stay would be more likely related to getting PIPd or unable to get promoted/grow there.

[dagmx]

Your counterpoint is valid only if reviewers are looking at the number of companies.

Resumes usually include the list of major achievements at that role.

It's the combination of the two that people look for.

Looking at just quantitative things like number of companies is terrible. Looking at the combination of qualitative and quantitative aspects of a CV/Resume are what make for an attractive candidate.