Ask HN: Is job hopping as bad as they say?

I'm 33 and since I started working I've went through 6 companies - the shortest tenure was an year, the others in the 1.5-2.5 years range. I'm at a stable place right now for about a year, leading a small team at a BigCo with nice colleagues and learning. Despite the fact that there's nothing wrong with this current place, friends talked to me about opportunities paying 50% more in teams led by amazing people and I'm tempted. I'm not even sure I'll apply, I just wanted to give some personal context and ask HN if: - job hopping hurts long term career growth at management level and above - it's better to find a good spot and stay there as long as possible given the incoming stagflation/high rates /recession scenario Thank you!

No. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Who would YOU think is more valuable - someone who stayed in the same job for 10 years, made 4 or 5% wage increases every year, or someone that drastically increased their income every few years. So lets take 2 people who both start at making $60,000. One of them stays in the same job and gets a 4% increase per year will make and at the end of 10 years will be making $85,398 per year. Meanwhile, person 2 switches jobs every 2 years and has 5 jobs during those 10 years, but each one new job he or she makes a lot more money at the job hire. So he (or she) like the first person also starts at $60K and does that for 2 years, then gets another job for $80K, and another 2 years gets another job for $95K, and 2 years later gets $115K, and 2 years after that makes $125K. People get hired at one rate, but as soon as they are in the system, people are more or less locked into the 4% raise per year. No company will pay a current employee as much as they will a new hire. So anyways, which candidate is more interesting to the average hiring person? The one who keeps making more money every 2 years, and switching jobs. Why? Because, wow, that person must be really worth it and companies are fighting to hire a person who most likely is a top performer, so they think. Why would someone keep hiring him at higher and higher salary if he or she is not worth it? I'm not saying that this thinking is correct. I'm not saying that there are not companies out there who still look for people who want to stay a long time. But most companies will want to hire the person who changes jobs a lot, because there is a competition that develops. Also, throughout one's 20's, people really don't expect someone that age to settle down. Once one reaches 35-ish years old, they might expect a longer stay at a company.

But, ALWAYS go for more money, all things being equal.

With a few exceptions, yes, it will likely hurt your long term prospects.

The reason is pretty straightforward. If I, as a manager, see that you have a history of 1-2 year tenures, It's sensible for me to assume that that's what you'll do at my company too. The more senior the position, the longer term the work usually is. So, if you're making decisions for 5-10 years but are only going to be around for 2, what's the likelihood you'll be making good long term decisions rather than good (for your resume) short term decisions?

There are, of course, exceptions to this. If, say, you specialise in turning around failed departments then serial short tenures may well make perfect sense. But, in general, the shorter the expected tenure, the lower the expected benefit vs cost.

Of course, that's not to say that hiring someone who has 10 years at a previous company means that they'll stay forever. But, as a hiring manager, you're taking plenty of risks as it is. It's usually safer to hire someone with a few reasonably long tenures all things considered. And that's really the point. If the rest of your resume is outstanding for the role, then I may just accept that I have you for 2 years tops. But if it's on a par with the market then I have little incentive to hire you versus someone less risky.

Source, am reasonably senior manager at a large company and have hired a lot of people over the years.

As with any question, it depends! I personally think it is OK to job hop a little, but it is important to take the macro view of your career when deciding to stay or go. The question should be "am I learning and growing enough here or should I move on to somewhere else?". Because honestly even working at the same company you should be taking on new challenges too!

Some factors which help with job hopping resumes:

- Earlier in career

- Showing growth

- Demonstrates impact at each stop

- Unavoidable events (in my case my company was acquired, in a different case my project cancelled, etc)

At some point you should probably slow down though :)