Live data from Hacker News

Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

bothsidesofthetable.com

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#21
I'm not sure I'd want to hire someone who hadn't switched jobs several times in their careers so far -- especially if they worked in tech over the past 10 to 15 years.

In my experience, people who have worked at various companies bring a more diverse set of experiences to the table. They know that there's more than one way to do something.

On the other hand, people who have stayed at one job for a long time (in a non-executive role) while everything around them was changing probably aren't as good as identifying opportunities or accepting change.

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#22
I'm 24 years old. I've had 6 employers since I was 19. I've doubled my salary every year for the past four years. And I think this article is bullshit.

Am I wrong for choosing the path that brings me personal success at the cost of "company loyalty"? The depiction of an ideal employee painted by this author sounds a lot like the Japanese Salaryman - diligent and loyal to the company. Isn't that model considered totally broken? Company loyalty as a top priority comes at the cost of ineffectiveness and lower morale. It just doesn't seem right.

If your employees are being scalped away at salary+15, maybe you're not paying them enough. If your employees are working 12 months and switching jobs, maybe you don't offer enough internal growth. If your are rejecting applications of "job hoppers", maybe you're leaving major value on the table.

In Silicon Valley, it's an employee's market. The employer has to work to retain, support, and fairly compensate your employees. Otherwise, you shouldn't be surprised when they up and leave.

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#23
Fucking asshole. Almost no one wants to change jobs every 12 months. Looking for work is a pain in the ass and changing jobs is inherently risky. Everyone goes into a job hoping they will work out so well at the company as to have no incentive to leave... at least for 5-10 years. All this is even more true for the best employees, because the number of desirable employers drops off faster than the number of talented people. (The best people, who want only to work at the best companies, have what is in a way the most difficult kind of job search.)

Job hopping is almost always involuntary-- not in the sense of a person getting fired, but in the sense of a person being wise enough to realize that he's in a position that his wasting his time, and moving on-- the rational response.

The "job hopper" stigma originally came into existence because people who did so would rise rapidly in salary through iterated negotiations; in times such as the late 1990s, it's possible to get to a very high salary level this way. Pursued inflexibly, it's a terrible strategy in the long term, because it makes you less likely to end up as someone's protege (rolling stone, no moss) and eventually compensation will reflect the resulting stagnation. But most "job hoppers" do not fall into this category; they change jobs not because they are trying to game the system, but because they realize they are wasting time.

If your career is not improving-- you're not learning, inadequately mentored, and no one is looking out for your advancement-- then you should change jobs as soon as you can do so with minimal harm to the company. (If you're in a small company, it might be right to stay on for a couple months, at least to train someone else.) Since most people are not and cannot be "protege", this means that it's good to shift around a few times until finding a fit.

Likewise, everyone has to do some grunt work and deal with some unpleasantness, and recognizing this is just being a mature person, but anyone who finds out his job is mostly or entirely grunt work, or work unrelated to his career (e.g. the programmer who gets put full-time on office tasks) is wasting time and should leave.

Sorry, but I have to say all this because I am sick and fucking tired of people ripping on my generation for not playing by someone else's shitty rules. Are the older people really so damn entitled as to not understand all this? And how can they expect loyalty to companies when layoffs happen all the time?

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#24
I agree with the general concept, but how on earth is 3 years "short-term"? That's enough time to see certain medium-sized software projects through the full development cycle from conception through v1, with plenty of time left over to follow up with v2 and v3. I get that it's nothing like being a lifer, but I think its a significant period of time for an engineer. Also, your use of phrases like "buh bye" make me think you're trolling for controversy a bit too hard.

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#25
post #15

One of my bosses told me, "People who have been at their current company for more than four years probably do not have enough thirst for challenge to be a good fit at a startup." That seemed to work for him. And I think Mark Suster has had success with his preferences in the opposite direction. So maybe this is an example of hiring to our biases that don't matter as much as we think.

It probably matters to the extent that it helps form the company's culture. It might not be that one is better than the other, but picking one side might matter for its own sake.

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#26

"Look at some of the uber-successful icons of Silicon Valley / Technology: Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry/Sergey, Eric Schmidt, Andy Groves, John Doerr. Not job hoppers." That's because they're founders and CEO's. If you're hiring me, by definition I'm not the founder (but if I have lots of equity and am treated as an equal partner maybe we'll split the difference on that one). Are you hiring me to be C…

Job hopping for a founder or CEO would be an entirely different thing. If you take someone's money, you take on responsibility to them. If you personally hire people into a position that won't exist if you abdicate, the same is true. If you hit a patch of shitty or painful work for a few months, you stick through it because other people are depending on you.

Someone who tries a corporate job for four months, realizes that he isn't getting good projects, and leaves, is (a) doing what he should do, since he's undervalued in his current role, and (b) not really hurting anyone.

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#27
I'm right at the age he was talking about. Does 3.5 years at my first job sticking through two short-term paycuts to be laid off make up for the now (6 employers) that have followed?

* 1.5 years, left after the group was split in half and I was forced into full time testing (I enjoyed part time testing and the first year in that role was outstanding, the new position and team was not a good match).

* 1 year, taken over, got J2EE experience and worked with a great team, too bad the office was scheduled to be closed and that we were given no work to do.

* 6 months, layoff, worked with the full cutting edge J2EE JBoss (Seam) stack but was let go as one of the newest employees and the only one that didn't know C# (15% of IT laid off) when the budget was shifted.

* Short stint at a failed startup, learned some PHP

* New stint at a promising startup

Technically, with the take over, that's now 7 employers. I think the new job looks quite promising, and I don't regret any of those experiences, as I now have a lot of breadth.

I freely admit that I had to work to avoid appearing as a job hopper, and that hurt in the recently ended job hunt. I still think (hope?) that I've ended up at my best work place since that year learning J2EE.

*editted for clarity and inserting some more details in the first few minutes

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#28
When can we get out of this 1800s Industrial Revolution mentality?

I can see the author's point that it is bad to hire job-hoppers at a startup. A startup probably needs people to stay around for their knowledge.

But this is such a terrible generalization. People leave for basically one reason - they will be happier doing something else. Why not make your company the place they will be happiest at rather than blaming those around you?

The author is upset because with "job-hoppers", employers do not have as much power as they once did. This advice is incredibly biased towards keeping the status-quo for the author's own selfish reasons.

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#29
post #4

"You’re probably disloyal. You don’t have staying power. You’re in it more for yourself than your company." You mean, the company that would cut you loose in about three seconds flat if you became unproductive? Employment is an economic transaction. If you pay me, I will do high-quality, honest work for you. That's fair. If I don't produce, you can stop paying me. That's fair. But if you don't pay me well, or mistrea…

I don't think the author is interested in making a fair transaction. It sounds a lot more like he's trying to frame the situation so that he holds all the cards, leaving the employee with the short end of the stick.

"That awesome gal you hired in engineering has job options and she knows it."

I can totally imagine him lobbying for more H1-B visas so he can get "captive" employees who are stuck without options to leave.

Re: Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees.

#30
post #5

But in a competitive job market you’re less likely to get the chance to tell me your sob story. That may be a little delusional (might be his MBA showing) in light of the recent reports of major hiring drives from the big names: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230462870457518...

It also seems like, if true, it would be self-correcting: if it were hard to get tech jobs, people who had jobs would be pretty reluctant to leave them. You don't go job-hopping when there's nothing to hop to!
Post reply on HN