As someone who's bounced around a fair bit in jobs (at one point I had lost 4 jobs in less than 4 years, all of which laid everyone off when they closed their doors) I wonder how much the candidates stability affects hiring decisions. For those of you who do interviewing/hiring, do you look for someone with 5 years in one position? Do you dismiss outright candidates who've held many short-term positions?
(And a related issue - how large is your company, and how bureacratic is the organization?)
Since the DotCom bust I haven't even bothered to look at the dates that a potential hire has been on a job.
All I care about is how long (total) they've done the job and whether they can answer my tech questions.
The company I am currently at has around 800 people, and has a "low" to "medium" level of beaucracy.
When I interview a candidate that has bounced around I try to figure out why they really left each job. If there are good reasons I don't hold it against them. This usually entails talking to the previous employers and asking direct pointed questions of the candidate.
That depends if the person left the company or was fired or laid-off, if they keep being laid-off then I wouldn't worry about it, if they are being fired obviously you should be concerned, and if they are leaving ask why, if it seems like BS then I would probly not hire them, however if they left for a legit reason (Ill let you define this) then its not a concern.
I do not decide this until after I have spoken to the candidate. It is possible the person has just been horribly unlucky and had a run of contract positions that were poor companies. Some people are more motivated to find a "perfect" job.
If he stayed in one placed for five years and then said it was horrible... that is when I would be concerned. :)