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

I have three rules in no particular order:

- I always let my manager know where I stand and when I decide to start looking for other options and if there is something that can be done about it or not;

- I never leave in the middle of a delivery cycle or when things are rough for the team;

- I'm always available for a reasonable period after I leave, in case I'm needed.

The last company I worked for, C-level position for almost three years (that started as a 6-month consultancy gig) I let them know almost 6 months in advance that I will be stopping working for awhile and that we should work together on a strategy. They did business as usual for half a year, having secret meetings to hire a replacement (even though I offered to participate) and ultimately failed.

Then they asked me to help them for 2 more months, and because it was a sabbatical break, I agreed to help. They ended up not paying me for those 2 months, basically blamed me for a bunch of unrelated stuff and then cut all contact (I feel this was all rather unnecessary). They later contacted me to help them, I did as it was an urgent problem and it took a short amount of time, then they just stopped saying anything again, but I'd help them again if they had an emergency and it wouldn't tax me.

Why the long story? Well, I think those 'rules' are worth sticking to even if the other party turns out to be complete garbage and I think it's more important for you to reconcile with your 'job hopping' than to worry about what others might be thinking about it.

The only limit you'll experience from job hopping is that you'll essentially be stuck in an individual contributor (IC) role if you don't stay in anyone place past 2 years, although even that isn't always true. BTW, IC here means any type of role where you're mostly limited to project work and not strategy work (team leadership, technical leadership etc.) Generally the split is senior/staff vs principal type levels, or manager type levels.

The reason this is the case is because to have org-wide impact and get promoted you usually need a few years, have seen through a few big projects, and have built a reputation at one place. This is especially true of large organizations, maybe less so of smaller sub 500 person companies.

But if you want to hop every 2-3 years, especially in software, go for it, especially if you have no ambition for leadership or feel that you're stagnating where you are. You'll keep your IC level salary at market rate which is always going to be much higher than whatever your company is paying you.

Granted, there will be some managers who don't want to hire you because you're a "job hopper" but in my experience, these managers are not good managers and not people you want to work with.

I'd say the minimum at one place is essentially 2 years, although the conceptual minimum is seeing through work at your level end-to-end (e.g. finishing a big project). The reason I'd stick to 2 years though is because most people don't believe that anything can be achieved in less than 2 years.

Note, this advice likely doesn't apply in a bad job market. The reason that's the case is because bad job markets actually tend to allow people who are entirely unqualified to become hiring managers at their companies at a much higher rate than good job markets. That's usually the case because when companies start cutting costs they might fire a bunch of people, including middle management, and assign the responsibilities to cheaper people. There's a reason those people are cheaper.

Anyway, these people then become hiring managers and many of them hold the "job hopper" stigma. Again, bad managers.

What is 10 million jobs minus 9 million jobs that are reluctant to hire you due to a history of job hopping?

Either way, you need a good story: if you're just looking for better money or newer tech, you look opportunistic. If you have a plan that builds to something based on tech and domain, you look serious.

The story is most important for you. It's what you tell yourself to justify and orient yourself in your working life, to give you the patience to wade through crap and the vision to go in one direction.

So if you're tempted by opportunity, it's likely you have a weak story -- which means you're reduced to being useful to others. (Which can be fine.)

The best stories create value: bringing electric power to transportation, making a corner of biomedical research possible. If you commit to these stories, you might find a community of like-minded people, whom you can trust with your work-life.

And who won't leave at the next opportunity.