Live data from Hacker News

Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

pauldix.net

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#41
post #40
post #35

The reason Mark is an asshole is that he's trying to create / exploit cultural norms to prevent employees acting in their own self interest. Of course it would be optimal (for the employer) to have employees that never leave, but the vast majority of employers treat their employees fairly poorly. Any social bonds such as employers keeping employees around through tight times have long since been shattered since emplo…

Asshole? Dick? What's the point of that language. Mark's free to hire (or invest) however he wants and you're free to not work with him. Even though I have my disagreements, I found it very useful to hear Mark's perspective on hiring. There are a lot of people who share his philosophy and you're better off understanding it. On the asymmetry of loyalty, it's just basic economic incentives. An individual has to be much…

Agreed. I would rather have him come out and say it rather than him keep quiet about it and just doing it his way anyways.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#42
post #16
post #3

This is a commercial transaction with all that entails. If you as an employer are any good - you will have the best people wanting to join you and if you are not , then well , it is going to be a revolving door. The best people will always have more offers on the table.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of the best programmers are abysmal interviewees. So I would suggest that there are a ton of briliant programmers out there with jobs that are well below their level.

True , but then let the code talk , in this day and age of github and other social coding sites - show them what you got and if the employer has any sense he will hire you.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#43
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think loyalty is something earned. I think we should model jobs more like relationships, value has to be given on each side of the equation. If your not treating the girl well, she leaves. You don't go in saying, baby if you date me you have to be here for the next 2 years even if I start beating you. disclaimer I'm a Job hopper ;)

But a girl who has been changing boyfriends like her clothes in the past is more likely to do so in the future. Maybe that's because she doesn't fullfill her side of the equation in general.

Wouldn't it still be worth it to be with a great girl for only a few months?

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#45
post #24

As much as I understand the developers point of view on this, it is different as an entrepreneur. For a startup it is vital to not have half of your companys knowledge walk out the door. This article just says that there are valid reasons why job hoppers can be good employees. Mark Suster doesn't say that you should never change your job, nor does he deny young people to have some more tries for orienatation.

In a knowledge worker economy the workers own the means of production. In effect, the factory walks out the door when they do. The only way to prevent it is to make sure the knowledge is shared very well among all workers, no one person is a gatekeeper, code is well maintained and high quality, and firing anyone who purposefully tries to "own" the knowledge before they can own it. That's the only way I've found to make sure the factory stays at your company.

It also means that you have to now treat programmers as the "talent" and not the "workers". Think movie star not factory worker and you'll do a lot better. It may seem retarded, but if you want smart creative people to work for you then treat them like smart creative people. Not like a rivet puncher at a factory.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#46
post #32

Paul, I think you make a compelling counter-argument. Thank you for moving the debate forward. I have written my own follow on posting here: http://bothsid.es/62o that referenced your blog posting

Hi Mark,

Your follow piece is very helpful.

> " If I’m looking at a stack of resumes and have to quickly whittle them down I usually eliminate resumes where people switched too many times and didn’t have a single place that they stayed for 3+ years "

Is a lot more reasonable than the original title (when I see it with people), especially when applied to those ten or fifteen years into their current career (edit: originally I said "30+", but then I realized age is an illegal question and that there may be people who switched careers at a later age e.g., by going back to college for a CS degree at 25).

> Again, this is totally fine. I recommend to people that you put on your resume the reason that you changed jobs.

It would make sense to do this for 6 month stints, but not for 18-36 month ones. One reason is that this question is already asked on most employment applications. It can be confirmed through a reference check (I am still surprised when companies don't do this prior to making an offer). Having reasons stated all over the resume can be perceived as excuses and as bad mouthing (in public, given that the resume is read by many and may be publicly posted) former employers (e.g., if one put down "insufficient challenge" or "inadequate compensation").

When hiring engineers, resume screening should be done by engineers (or at worst, engineering PMs). I know they will hate it, but remind them that they will hate working with bozos a lot more.

I can find a lot better heuristics: do they just list keywords, are there obviously technically inaccurate things, are descriptions full of "wank words" vs. concrete, measurable, achievements. Asking candidates to submit an answer to a _simple_ randomly chosen question along with the resume (e.g., "in C what's wrong with this code: int* foo (void) { int n = 3; return &n; }", posting puzzles (like Facebook does) or doing a "fizz buzz" test over Etherpad are much simpler filters.

If there are red flags on the resume (and I agree that lack of 3+ year stays ten years after the person has graduated college is a red flag), the place to address them is either right before an in-person interview (after a phone screen) or right after (before making an offer). It's the role of the hiring manager, team technical lead and company HR to do this.

As an engineer conducting an interview or a phone screen, I already have a tough issue on my hand: give a binary answer after only forty five minutes with the person; time spent asking about their life's story (other than asking them about specific projects) is better spent finding information that will help me tell me whether they're technical and cultural (in terms of their ability to communicate, passion for software engineering/computer science, etc...) fit for the position or not.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#47
Cogent: "If you're a job hopper that will translate to how you view entrepreneurship." This is so off the mark it hurts my brain. Let me explain why.

As an entrepreneur there is one benefit that ranks above all others. Stability and a big paycheck definitely aren't it. It's a sense of ownership. It's a sense of owning your own destiny. I've talked to a bunch of other entrepreneurs and they share that feeling.

If you ask job hoppers why they left some of their jobs the story will be the opposite. They left because they weren't given enough ownership. They weren't included in vital decision making processes. When you have the ability to improve your workplace, you have no reason to hop jobs.

Most jobs don't actually give their employees this chance. They're filled with bureaucracy and ridiculous power struggles. That's exactly the opposite of the startup and entrepreneurship experience.

This really resonated with me. The most frustrating jobs for me, the ones that ended in me leaping for my life or being defenestrated, were the ones where I was under extreme pressure to deliver, but the schedule and spec were subject to capricious, unpredictable shifts out of my control. The ones where I had little say in the composition of my team or the methods we used to deliver results.

Ultimately, accountability for the outcome without the authority to manage the effort is about as frustrating as life can get.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#48
While I empathize with employers that loose good people quickly (Unless I took a signing bonus, both the employer and myself put a lot of effort into bringing me on board. I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to.

Suster can go ahead and self select for stayers, this is capitalism after all, but he is going to lose out at the margin. Someone can actually get a ton of work done in two years and really and the 10 year employees I've met are rarely rockstars in their field.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#49

While I empathize with employers that loose good people quickly ( Unless I took a signing bonus, both the employer and myself put a lot of effort into bringing me on board. I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to. Suster can go ahead and self select for stayers, this is capitalism after all, but he is going to lose out at the margin. Someone can actually get a ton of work done in two yea…

> I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to.

I'm wondering if anyone ("rockstars", presumably) demanded that job interviews be treated as temp consulting gigs that need to be paid for.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#50
post #35

The reason Mark is an asshole is that he's trying to create / exploit cultural norms to prevent employees acting in their own self interest. Of course it would be optimal (for the employer) to have employees that never leave, but the vast majority of employers treat their employees fairly poorly. Any social bonds such as employers keeping employees around through tight times have long since been shattered since emplo…

Most professional employers give severance pay, usually well in excess of two weeks.

They give nothing. They offer to exchange a harsh noncompete/nonrecruitment contract for a big pile of money.
Post reply on HN