Its simply a byproduct of being in an emerging market. I don't know much about The Gold Rush, but I'm guessing people involved with it weren't staying at their jobs very long.
Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
21–30 of 67 posts
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#22My thoughts based on years of representing such companies: 1. Non-funded startups typically don't have employees or, if they do, they are employee-founders. If the cash isn't there to support salaries, you won't have payroll. People can and do get misled in non-funded companies, though it is the rare exception and by no means the rule, since most of those involved understand they are taking a flyer and that nothing m…
minor, but I object to your "Non-funded startups typically don't have employees" statement. Or perhaps profitable startups don't qualify as startups anymore?
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flakes are often Job Hoppers. Not all Job Hoppers are Flakes. Finally, someone taking a shot at that misconception. Just because some people advance their career and improve their conditions by changing employers doesn't mean they're unreliable or incompetent. Quite often it's the competent people who get sick and tired of a crappy job, widespread incompetence, excessive office politics and stuff like that and they d…
"doesn't mean they're unreliable" Well, from the point of view of an employer, it kind of does. They never know when you will leave for a new job.
I disagree - if the hoppers are hopping because they are not getting the professional growth they need, or that they think they're being taken advantage of, then that's highly predictable for you as an employer.
Are you treating your employees fairly? Do they feel like they're contributing, or are they writing dead-end code?
You know when they will leave for a new job - when you start treating them like trash.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#24I don't think the misleading of employees is endemic to startups, at all. It's also not always intentional; people overestimate what they can do for the new hire in terms of mentoring and support, and business tends to reward those (at all levels) who make big promises.
Yeah, but about the second time you realize you broke your promise to a new hire you should be changing what you promise (or fixing the real problem, if that mentoring and support is indeed needed).
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#25When I was still a wage-slave, I hopped jobs because most start-ups are run by people who have never done this before, and they create lousy work environments.
I also like to leave other peoples' companies every year because I'm a systems engineer, and most of my work is front-loaded. After I've been at a company for a year, my systems are automated well enough that I have little to do but maintain or grow, and I want to be more in life than a systems janitor.
Plus, start-up compensation sucks. If I took a job tomorrow, I would make roughly $200k doing SRE or equivalent at an established company .. or $100k and 15 basis points of stock options vested over 4 years at some me-too start-up whose business model looks a lot like that south park underwear gnomes episode.
Not to mention that most companies do their best to over-hire because they really feel that their problems are incredibly complex and unique, just like all the 6 other companies who got funded in the same marketplace that year.
And, it's just a good investment strategy. Leave a start-up every year as soon as you've gotten your first 25% worth of stock options vested. In a decade you might see $100k for your trouble.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#26At my last job it took me 3 months to find out that the strike price my options received was 3x what my offer letter hinted it would be. That gradually affected my motivation until I left, and I never exercised my options. Not intentional, but misleading.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#27I don't think the misleading of employees is endemic to startups, at all. It's also not always intentional; people overestimate what they can do for the new hire in terms of mentoring and support, and business tends to reward those (at all levels) who make big promises.
Yeah, but about the second time you realize you broke your promise to a new hire you should be changing what you promise (or fixing the real problem, if that mentoring and support is indeed needed).
I agree wholeheartedly. One issue is that every "promise" is a bit unique. HN posters are big on mentoring and interesting work, which are subjective qualifications, but this is not the case for everyone. Some people just want a salary and a chair-- much easier to promise.
The incentive to mentor is long-term. It benefits the company later on, and loyalty is an asset for the person doing the mentoring (his proteges might move with him if he gets sacked). Unfortunately, few people think this far ahead. In the short term, mentoring is an expense.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never had any luck getting a serious answer to that question. It's always hand-wavy fluff. It's the employer's equivalent of "what is your biggest weakness". It just tests their ability to BS.
You can keep asking the question in other ways: "How long was the person before me here?" "What's the average length of time someone stays here?" "How long have *you* been here?" If you really want to know the answer, you just have to keep asking. Turnover rate is the first real question I ask. (Also: the lack of an answer is an answer on its own.)
Mentioning a "person before me" in an interview is a bad idea, because it brings forth associations you might not want. Also, there might not be such a person.
The second and third questions are good, but short tenures could also signify a rapidly growing company (which is something to be wary of, but not for the same reason) like Google in 2006.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#29Turnover rate: a FANTASTIC question to ask at your next job interview. Keep them on their toes. We love the people who ask hard questions. If the person interviewing you doesn't: don't work there. Thanks for that post.
I've never had any luck getting a serious answer to that question. It's always hand-wavy fluff. It's the employer's equivalent of "what is your biggest weakness". It just tests their ability to BS.
Not so. Turnover rate is something you can measure. They can either choose to lie about it or not. Biggest weakness is subjective.
Re: Let’s Admit Why There Are So Many “Job Hoppers” In Startupland
#30I think this debate can be summed up as: Flakes are often Job Hoppers. Not all Job Hoppers are Flakes. Correlation, not causation. Also, I'd like to see some objective stats here like "do companies with lots of job hoppers do better or worse, here is the data" Vivek Wadhwa cited in his studies job hopping as an aggregate positive for the economy of silicon valley and its emergence as the prominent startup hub. http:/…
Flakes are often Job Hoppers. Not all Job Hoppers are Flakes. Finally, someone taking a shot at that misconception. Just because some people advance their career and improve their conditions by changing employers doesn't mean they're unreliable or incompetent. Quite often it's the competent people who get sick and tired of a crappy job, widespread incompetence, excessive office politics and stuff like that and they d…
Part of the problem is the word "flake," it such a bad choice in this context. It's reasonable to skip over someone who is overqualified for a position. If it really won't challenge them and you can't pay them market rate for their talent, and there isn't a huge upside in responsibility...
The odds are that they won't be around long, and that doesn't mean they're a bad person or someone who can't get things done.
OTOH, the correlation != causation thing is huge as well. One of the reasons some people stay for long periods in one place is that they aren't that marketable because they really don't do much. Nobody is taking them out for coffee on a regular basis and gently trying to poach them.
Sometimes the people who move most often are the ones who have the most choices. Sure, you can label them as "lacking loyalty" or some such, but you cannot assume that those who don't move are automatically loyal. They simply may have stayed in one place because they had very little opportunity to advance by moving.