I definitely wouldn't hire a job hopper who is dumb enough to not somehow cover that up on his resmue...
If that is how you evaluate, you will end up with an organization of snakes.
Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
51–60 of 85 posts
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#52Cogent: "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…
Amen to that!
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#53This reminds me of an article I came across, praising execs working with an 'assignment mentality' rather than lifetime-employment seekers: http://hbr.org/2001/07/the-right-way-to-be-fired/ar/1 What's interesting in this debate is that Mark's own experience isn't where he puts his mouth. He spent the first 8 years of his career at Accenture (which screams failed attempt at making partner -- sorry to be harsh), but dr…
Update: link submitted to HN here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1293415
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#54According to the definition outlined in the article, I would be considered a "hopper". I've been gone between full-time freelancing and being a senior employee in 3 start-ups over the last 5 years.
Looking just at my employment history at face-value, you could determine (taking the article's definition of dedication and commitment) that I was not truly dedicated to the long-term success of the companies I've been involved in.
The real story, of course, is that there's a lot more beneath the surface. Instead of blowing me off, ask me about the extent of my dedication to each company. I'm absolutely convinced that I've sacrificed, failed, and subsequently learned more in 5 years of "hopping" than the majority of "dedicated" employees who spend the same amount of time in a single job.
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Having good code on github will get you an interview, but it won't make up for a bad one.
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#56has anyone looked at this through the eyes of the engineer? they are clearly not sold into your vision if they're job hopping--how is this the engineer's fault? your startup can only keep top-notch people as long as it's committed to changing the world. the smartest people i know want to work on hard problems that impact a lot of people. if you can't fulfill that in an engineer, what incentive do they have to stay?
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#57I think the point of both sides of the argument is this: Don't look for a job, go start your own damn company.
and unless you plan on working alone, you'll have to hire people. You can't hire people the same way you talk yourself into entrepreneurship. They're not going to be co-founders, they won't have a great upside, they're going to be paid a salary to do a job for you. Figuring out how to hire the right people is probably harder than anything else I've done.
>They're not going to be co-founders, they won't have a great upside, they're going to be paid a salary to do a job for you.
This is a point that I think most (especially first time) founders would do well to keep in mind when thinking about loyalty or even overall commitment of employees.
As an employee with 1% or less of the company in options and a normal if not below market salary, I simply don't have the upside incentive to go "above and beyond." Combined with the situation of responsibility (handling outages and other emergencies) without authority (advice on major infrastructure changes ignored or delayed), my loyalty or commitment haven't been earned.
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#58As 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.
>For a startup it is vital to not have half of your companys knowledge walk out the door.
This strikes me as putting the onus on the company to ensure that knowledge isn't monopolized (as a previous commentor suggests) and, perhaps more importantly, to ensure retention of key people.
One way is to provide ownership, perhaps in the case of a startup, literally, of the company and its outcome.
In effect, this is the difference between another (likely unequal share) co-founder and merely an employee. Even if such a co-founder moves on, there's a strong enough incentive not just to "walk out" and leave the company without access to that knowledge.
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#59Cogent: "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…
Agreed. I gave two week's notice earlier this week. This is the first time I haven't lasted two years at a company, so I am feeling a bit like a job hopper. But the reasons I'm leaving are very much about accountability without authority.
Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers
#60The 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…
Although I completely disagree with Mark's opinion regarding job hopping, I do not think it is right to call him a a-hole. The guy seems really decent.
Well, there are two ways to deal with employee churn. The first is to create such an awesome work environment (via wages, stock options / golden handcuffs, learning opportunities, career growth, flexibility, etc etc -- whatever it is that works for individual employees) that people laugh at the recruiters that inevitably call. The other way, which Marc advocates, is to create systemic discrimination against employees that seek out the best opportunities for themselves. This is contrary to Marc providing the best opportunities for employees.
Consider, as an example, the Mahalo stuff that started this. Jason's employee was given the opportunity to use his web dev skills on a much higher profile site and to work on a big open source toolkit (I assume he was referring to YUI or similar). Jason could either have wished his employee the best as said employee tried to take his career to the next stage, or provided him with some similar opportunity to convince him to stay, or... advocated for a system in which employees have difficulty switching jobs in order to keep the employee in an inferior position solely for the benefit of Jason. This is what Marc wants.
Note that in Marc's article, there was nothing about retaining employees by creating such an awesome environment that they don't want to leave. Oh, and btw? Here's a protip. If a dev in the valley making $100-$150 leaves for a $10K/year raise? It isn't the money. It's the boss. I claim that except for exceptional cases, salary is a 2nd or 3rd tier consideration for most great employees.
So, does Marc's advocacy of keeping employees by urging employers to systematically discriminate against people that switch jobs to find their best place that make him an asshole? In my book, yes.
ps -- protip #2? One way to discourage people from saying their boss sucked was to discourage it, ala Marc. The other way is to not be a shit boss. Again, Marc chooses the first path.