As a programmer, I feel like we are more likely to be wooed away from our jobs (for money or challenge.) Why do companies still see it as a commitment issue when it's really the company's fault of not retaining the talent?
Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#2Ramping someone up costs a lot of money. So they don't want to waste it on someone who is only going to stay for a year or less.
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#3Presumably there's an up-front cost to hiring a permanent employee that they count on amortising over N years - leaving after a few months means they've (probably) wasted time, money, and effort.
(Although I would agree that the onus is on the company to set expectations at the start and play fair. I've left permanent positions twice after 3 months due to terrible working environments that they refused to sort out.)
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#4Ramping someone up costs a lot of money. So they don't want to waste it on someone who is only going to stay for a year or less.
Also shown in the "we'll send you on $expensive training but if you leave within N months, you have to pay us back" scenarios.
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#5The companies are not the problem really, it's the people who think the company that need to solve this is really the problem. Want more challenges and the company doesn't have them or cannot give you these don't switch companies, work part-time on another project or your personal projects. I think that's the best plan, quitting jobs all the time is not going anywhere.
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#6> Why do companies still see it as a commitment issue...
Multiple job-hops are a likely indicator of an individuals poor decision quality. Such a person won't put in the time required to make the work situation better. They're perceived as emotional, impatient, and poor team players.
Incidentally, the employer views your role as someone who can help move 'his' agenda forward. Perhaps a bit Old School; he's not there to mollycoddle and entertain your needs.
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#7The companies are not the problem really, it's the people who think the company that need to solve this is really the problem. Want more challenges and the company doesn't have them or cannot give you these don't switch companies, work part-time on another project or your personal projects. I think that's the best plan, quitting jobs all the time is not going anywhere.
I disagree, isn't it better to go to another company that might provide challenge/pay rather then looking for things to do (especially on that company's dime?)
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#8What is often? Every year? Every 6 months?
I have been asked during interviews why I left job A or B, and I just explained "The company ran out of money" or "They hired me to do something but then completely changed direction", etc. If you have a reason to explain why you left I don't think anyone can see that as a problem.
You said it, as developers we sometimes work for unstable companies, we take a bet and sometimes we lose. So what? We move on.
I would hire a guy who changes jobs every year over someone who's been in the same position for 10 years.
However, companies try to maintain this climate of "you have to commit!" because they want to use people guilt to keep them. It always baffles me to see companies who demand loyalty from their employees but have no problem letting them go when times are tough.
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#9The older the company, the less they like it. Loyalty in some places will replace skill... Even when a VP asked me about my 6 jobs in 10 years, I replied: 'same as you, been working at a lot of startups'...although I dont think the answer was the most diplomatic.
Re: Ask HN: Is it really that bad to switch jobs often?
#10The companies are not the problem really, it's the people who think the company that need to solve this is really the problem. Want more challenges and the company doesn't have them or cannot give you these don't switch companies, work part-time on another project or your personal projects. I think that's the best plan, quitting jobs all the time is not going anywhere.
Software engineers are meant to bring value to a company at some multiplier of their own rate of consumption. In other words, we're meant to bring more value to the company than we take away in salary and benefits and such. If an engineer is not bringing in more than they are taking out, they are removed and replaced without so much as a second thought. Companies have zero problem removing unproductive employees. Software engineers work almost (though not entirely) like a commodity.
With that said, if an engineer is bringing value and the company is not satisfying the needs of the engineer in some way, then the engineer should leave and find another position in which they will be satisfied while bringing significant value to the new company.
If a company can remove an engineer at the drop of a hat, why should an engineer not be able to do the same with a company? We put far too much emotion into these sorts of decisions. When it comes down to it the average engineer has about 90,000 effective working hours to sell in his or her lifetime. It is best to get the most out of those hours possible, whether that be purely financial (trading the most dollars for those hours as possible) or some other metric (the most satisfaction per hour traded). Quitting a job whenever your value per hour is too low for a higher value per hour is ABSOLUTELY the thing you should do.
Never sit at a job longer than you are satisfied. It is up to the company to keep you satisfied just as much as it is up to you to keep the company satisfied.