Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

sciencecareers.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#41

Post by mindcrime »

polymatter wrote: post #32
maximilianburke wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck. If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list. If they changed jobs repeatedly ev…

I understand you need to be picky as an employer, and I still can't comprehend the crap you as an employer receive when advertising jobs and I certainly don't envy you having to go through it. But I'm not sure you should assume a candidate who changed jobs every 1-2 years will continue doing so indefinately, especially if they have only had 2 or 3 jobs. Personal circumstances change and peoples appetite for risk gene…

if you have a say on hiring and don't have a say on the employees working environment

Anyone in that position should probably be the one looking for a new job.

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#42

Post by mindcrime »

maximilianburke wrote: post #12
doktrin wrote: post #3

a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you. Five to 7 years at a company is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when accepting a new job. Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first position, and 1.5 into my second.

I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck. If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list. If they changed jobs repeatedly ev…

As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment.

So, wait... you're saying you want employees to commit to you for 2 years, no matter how bad the job turns out to be? Ok, so are you going to commit to the employee for a minimum of 2 years, no matter how bad the employee turns out to be?

Or are you just trying to have your cake and eat it to? Employees don't exist to make your life easier, they're people, with their own dreams, hopes, goals and ambitions... why should they take one on the chin for you, if it might interfere with their pursuit of what matters to them?

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#43

Post by jonathanconway »

This is complete rubbish. Take a look at my LinkedIn profile: linkedin.com/in/jonathanconway.

Virtually nothing but 3/7/12-month stints.

I'm now making more money (and having more fun!) than ever before in my career!

The key is to keep your skills fresh and relevant to the job market, have an excellent C.V. and interview well.

Unfortunately a lot of people take on the mindset of "employees"/serfs and don't realize that every individual is a mini-business, which can benefit and profit from doing excellent work and marketing properly.

I'm going to keep up my contracting gig for as long as I can, because this is what I love doing, and I don't ever intend to "belong" to any employer.

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#44

Post by [deleted] »

doktrin wrote: post #3

a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you. Five to 7 years at a company is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when accepting a new job. Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first position, and 1.5 into my second.

[deleted]

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#45

Post by lkrubner »

"you’ll earn the job-hopper label"

What? In the year 2012? I assume this is being written about the USA? His comment seems to come straight out of the 1980s. I remember my parents telling me stuff like this when I was a kid. But what is the actual reality in 2012? Many companies are afraid to hire and ask that people work some sort of trial period. If you do programming, most companies in New York will offer you a 90 day contract, and see if you work out. If you want to get into editorial work, a lot of magazines are insisting that you work an internship first.

The unwillingness of companies to commit to people means it is only fair if people are unwilling to commit to companies.

Besides all that, during the last 12 years I have not worked anywhere continuously for more than 18 months. I'm still flooded with offers. I suppose working for small, new firms is different than working from large ones, but I've worked for some large ones as well.

I do not doubt that there are still some large, conservative organizations in the USA that still are worried about "job hoppers" but clearly the era where this was a predominate concern is now several decades in the past.

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#46

Post by misiti3780 »

tikhonj wrote: post #17
misiti3780 wrote: post #6

"I see a lot of CVs. For years, I’ve noticed that some people—a lot of people, actually—don't stay very long at their first jobs. They may accept the job intending to retire there in 30 or 40 years, but instead they leave quickly, adding an early blemish to their CVs." Leaving your job is considered an early blemish? Give me a break

I think it's very different in other fields. Software developers (especially in the Bay Area) seem to switch jobs fairly often and it's definitely an accepted practice. Other fields expect you to keep a job for a far longer time.

If your job sucks, and you're not learning shit, you should leave ASAP. Then, when your next employer says

"I see you left your last job after only three months, what's up with that?"

You can respond:

"Honestly, my job sucked, I wasn't learning shit, and I thought it was bad for my career, but this place seems different"

And this so called "blemish" is an advantage.

I get what your saying, but I think if you have the balls to leave because your not learning enough, no decent employer is going to look at that as a bad thing, and if they do, you should keep searching anyways.

Edit: The difference in other fields is it is harder to find a new job, but if you were good, this probably wouldnt be a problem anyways

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#47

Post by vonmoltke »

michaelochurch wrote: post #33
achompas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey Mike! Hope you're doing well. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. I think you're misrepresenting OP's argument here. He's arguing that younger people with repeated job jumps may raise flags at prospective employers. I tend to agree with OP, too. Jumping between gigs can be a problem, especially for pe…

Hey! How are you doing? I just sent you an email. Are you still at the same company? I know what the OP's saying, and I'm probably exaggerating my normal reaction. I just feel like this idea that "job hoppers" are the problem rather than a symptom is a bit ridiculous. I don't know anyone who goes into a job intending to bolt after 1 year. I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in a…

I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion) than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables based on the average.

That was the driving reason I ultimately left my first company. I had success in the first several years either getting promoted or new internal positions, but hit a wall about 3 years ago in a position that slowly made me miserable. I got negative progress in my efforts to find another internal position.[1]

I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead attached.

I never did that, but I thought about it a couple times.

[1] I was basically labelled "disloyal" for wanting to find a new position.

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#48

Post by philsnow »

MartinCron wrote: post #28
doktrin wrote: post #3

a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you. Five to 7 years at a company is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when accepting a new job. Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first position, and 1.5 into my second.

I once left a job after just three months. It was obviously not a good fit for me, but I realized that sticking around for a year, the whole "I'm going to give it a year" thing, wasn't really a good idea for anyone. For me, having an explanation about each job change is more important than the length of time at any given position.

You know, you don't necessarily have to put that 3-month job on your resume. Leaving a 3-month gap might be better, YMMV.

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#49

Post by maximilianburke »

mindcrime wrote: post #42
maximilianburke wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck. If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list. If they changed jobs repeatedly ev…

As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. So, wait... you're saying you want employees to commit to you for 2 years, no matter how bad the job turns out to be ? Ok, so are you going to commit to the employee for a minimum of 2 years, no matter how bad the employee turns out to be ? Or are you just trying to have your cake and eat it to? Employees don't exist to mak…

Did you read the sentence after that? Hopes and dreams are great. If you leave because you're unhappy I'll wish you all the best. However if you find that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence and re-apply after being on the job for only 9 months in the first place, I'll probably pass on you as I'll still have it in my mind that you left your old team down a man with the same work to do.

It's far from black and white. Context matters. If you're coming from another part of the company I'll check to see what projects you were on. I know a lot of good people that lost their jobs, and others who left, after they were on a string of unbelievably bad projects. But I knew the context of the work and the project they were on and ended up recently making one of the best hires my group has ever done with one of these guys.

After that point? If you're unhappy with your work, or want to try something new, I'll help you find something better. I hired you because I thought you'd be a good fit for the company and ideally I'd like that relationship to continue. To that end I'll ask the all people I know to see what's open and hopefully find you something that's engaging.

Re: Why Good People Leave Good Jobs

#50

Post by MartinCron »

philsnow wrote: post #48
MartinCron wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once left a job after just three months. It was obviously not a good fit for me, but I realized that sticking around for a year, the whole "I'm going to give it a year" thing, wasn't really a good idea for anyone. For me, having an explanation about each job change is more important than the length of time at any given position.

You know, you don't necessarily have to put that 3-month job on your resume. Leaving a 3-month gap might be better, YMMV.

Yeah, I haven't put that job on the resume for years, nobody has asked about the gap yet.
Post reply on HN