Live data from Hacker News

Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

pauldix.net

71–80 of 85 posts

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

#71
post #57
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it is something I think all employers would do well to keep in mind. But especially startups, because as you said, you are almost always getting paid below market rates. And, on top of that, it's a rather unstable job; I mean, if the company goes under, you get fired, right?

The thing is, when you are a startup, you /don't need/ people who want to stick around for 5 years. In 5 years, you will be much bigger, or dead. Either way, the employees you need 5 years from now will be /completely different/ from the employees you need now.

As a startup, you want ambitious people; the sort who hop from job to job to increase their salary and to get more interesting projects. You want someone who is relatively bright but inexperienced who really wants to gain experience. There are people who require constant change, and those people do really, really well at startups, and not so well at large corporations. Often, those people are willing to work for less money in exchange for letting them work in things they are not qualified to work on, and nearly always those people are willing to trade away stability, which is important, because as a startup, you can't offer stability.

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

#72
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As an employer without a lot of credibility, I have been known to pay for interviews. (Now, usually these were interviews where I asked for work to get done, but those are the best kind of interviews, no?) I don't understand why more places don't pay for interviews; it seems to make a lot of sense all around; I mean, this idea that a recruit will sacrifice the better part of a day to each potential employer speaks to…

I totaly agree with this. Instead of wasting time building generalizing filters take the ones you feel good about on as contractors first. Get a feel for their competency and whether they fit your environment before you buy the cow!

Anything else just seems so ineficient and risky at least when it comes to programmers. Think long term.

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

#73
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with your argument.However having read nearly all his posts I see a guy who is ambitious, doesn't hesitate to tell you his weaknesses, talks about how he would go beyond his means to keep great talent within his companies, gives smart/honest feedback about companies that he may not even be affiliated with, etc...

Sometimes people say stuff they don't necessarily mean 100% and before they know it they have already hit publish (And Google caches fast). For Mark, this is the first time I saw such a comment from him. So I am not going to hold it against him. I cannot say the same about Jason.

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

#74
post #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 ma…

This can't be emphasized enough. It's not enough that you have some technical wizard who is making everything happen at your startup. You have to make sure that the magic becomes a permanent asset, or you are going to get knocked back to the starting line when mr wizard leaves or when it's time to grow the team.

How to do this depends on the particular kind of work being done, but generally speaking you want maintainable code with lots of tests, and records of the valuable knowledge gained in the process.

It's not easy to get this out of most developers, particularly if you are not a developer yourself. If you ignore it, chances are very good it's not being done at all.

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

#76
After a little over a decade working in the software industry, I would put the bozo rate for employers at about 9/10. Though I don't have much direct experience hiring developers, I get the impression that they have roughly the same spread. This industry is like the music industry or Hollywood: a few gems in a sea of nobodies, all looking for a piece of the action. If you're a gem but not in the loop, it could take while to be discovered.

A developer who has changed jobs every year could be a bozo themselves, or they could be a star talent who hasn't been lucky enough to find an equally valuable employer. If it's loyalty you want, find one of the latter and give them a good working experience. They will be very very grateful.

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

#77
Alex talked about something similar a while ago on TheDailyWTF. I haven't seen anyone post this link in these various discussions yet, so I'll drop it here:

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Tur...

He writes about how IT turnover is a good thing, and suggests that job hoppers are likely to be more talented. Interesting stuff.

(Also, I tried posting this on the linked article instead of here, but it kept rejecting my post, even when I took out the link. No idea what's going on there.)

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

#78
post #6

i laughed at this line: >As the old saying goes: money can't buy you love, but it can buy you prostitutes

I also liked "if you want loyalty without earning it, hire a dog."

Working at a job right now that has several in-house dogs wandering around the office all day, it makes me wonder if they have 401k packages and non-disclosure agreements or not.

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

#79

Hmm. I changed jobs 6 times (5 companies) in 3 1/2 years, which averages to a job change every 6 months. Longest stint I had was about a year. As far as I can tell, I have not been noticeably penalised for it in my professional life. It's definitely the fastest way to increase one's income, and you can't blame people for doing that. My first job was doing technical support (first full, then part-time) at $8.50/hr, an…

Your case is justified because you seem to be qualified for something better than what your starting job was. So job hopping made sense for you. As a hiring manager, I would not hire someone who has been job hopping for the same position . Think of it as a twist on the Peter Principle.

Fair enough, but, it seems to me that it is rarely the case that two positions at two different companies in our field are truly the same, even if the title is the same and/or they draw on similar skill sets.

My jobs were all in different subspecialisations of technology, but there is a certain identifiable sameness that unites all of them, and especially unites the first three (ISP and SMB-oriented IT consulting work) with the last three (VoIP & TDM telecommunications).

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

#80
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been asked for loyalty from companies many more times than I've ever been shown any. It's pretty rare that a company really sticks by their employees. For the younger generations, after watching their parents work 20+ years at the same organization and receive a cheap watch, they have no illusions about who will be providing the loyalty and who will be receiving it.

> work 20+ years at the same organization and receive a cheap watch Or worse, a pink slip.

I have actually seen that happen, although it was at a factory, not some white collar place(where the watch would be better). A man worked there for 20 years and the owner gave him a $40 watch. He certainly earned only slightly more than minimum wage those 2 decades—more than the co-workers he himself oversaw. It was quite surreal, and unfortunately the meaning of it was lost on most present. I quit that job not long after. There is a vast, quasi-invisible economic divide in America between rural and urban. Perhaps it's always been this way.
Post reply on HN