Sometimes we get so entrenched in the way we’ve been doing things for years that we don’t pause to consider whether our method even makes sense anymore.  But we should.

A recent Evolv Analytics study applies hard data behind a few long-accepted beliefs about who makes a good job candidate, and who doesn’t.

It isn’t that these beliefs evolved out of nowhere.  In fact, they used to be valid criteria for evaluating candidates.  But the nature of jobs has changed considerably over the years, and it’s only natural that resumes reflect those changes.

Here are two big myths, challenged:

1. A job candidate who didn’t stay with one company for many years is not a safe bet.

False, according to the Evolv Study.  Their results show zero correlation between the number of positions employees have had in the recent past and how long they’ll last on their next job.

2. Unemployed candidates are less likely to perform as an employed candidate.

False, according to the Evolv Study.  Their results show people who are unemployed when they apply for a job have the same expected tenure as any other candidate.

Why the change?

From our perspective, many employees simply don’t stay with one company for as long as they used to. Instead, they move from company to company taking on new challenges and gaining varied experience.  In fact, you could go so far as to wonder if in some cases the employee who stayed in the same cubicle for 5 years was as ambitious and motivated as the employee constantly sought new challenges.

And it goes without saying that these days, being “unemployed” isn’t automatically a sign that person doesn’t want to work.  It can mean he was taking time for a variety of personal projects, or that he was a victim of these difficult economic times.  Either way, it certainly doesn’t mean he won’t perform as well as someone who already has a job, and to discriminate on that basis is just…outdated.

You can access the full study here.

Are you the sort of person who needs a defined office space, with cute framed photos, plants, and an organized pencil drawer and filing system?

Those types of spaces are becoming increasingly rare in the workplace.

While the corner office used to be the coveted spot, now even upper management and executives find themselves working from temporary desks or sharing communal spaces with coworkers at all levels.

Why is this happening?  Lots of reasons.

First of all, we no longer need to store tangible paper filing systems, as most document filing systems live online.  This eliminates the need for a permanent physical location since workers can access their documents from anywhere in the world, as long as they have their laptop with them.

Simultaneously, the nature of jobs and workers has become much more transient.  Instead of staying in a job for 30 years, workers move from project to project, either within a company or across different companies.  They won’t likely sit at the same desk for more than a year.

Then there’s the fact that technology has made it easy to connect and collaborate without ever meeting face to face.  Many employees never even see their employer’s physical office.

According to this article by the WSJ, companies like American Express and GlaxoSmithKline are cutting costs and promoting collaboration with “unassigned workspaces” that are more like communal tables than desks.  These changes have their drawbacks, such as non-adjustable seating and lack of privacy, but for the most part companies and employees seem to enjoy the flexibility and sense of community they inspire.

As our worlds become increasingly virtual, in every aspect of our lives, it’s no wonder that our cubicles now live on our desktops.

What do you think of the shift from permanent desks to transitional, shared spaces? Can you think of any benefits or drawbacks?  And what does this shift say about the nature of the workforce overall?