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

Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

pauldix.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#61

Post by kevbin »

rhl wrote: post #11

This reminds me of an article I came across, praising execs working with an 'assignment mentality' rather than lifetime-employment seekers: http://hbr.org/2001/07/the-right-way-to-be-fired/ar/1 What's interesting in this debate is that Mark's own experience isn't where he puts his mouth. He spent the first 8 years of his career at Accenture (which screams failed attempt at making partner -- sorry to be harsh), but dr…

The distinction between tenured and assignment mentalities made in the HBR article is vital: before offering or accepting a position, make sure you understand the other's understanding of the relationship sought and the nature of the work. Distinguish between project-oriented and task-oriented work and act accordingly. Project-oriented positions have natural life-cycles with obvious times to conclude the relationship and move on (e.g., product delivery).

Finding people with an earnest, project-oriented mentality is hard. A lot of people believe or want to believe they are project-oriented, but are really case-workers, and vice-versa. A good portion of people aren't project- or task- oriented, they're people-oriented and will conform to a project- or case-oriented environment to the extent that it fosters good inter-personal relations.

A small fraction of people are entirely self-oriented: they'll do whatever is necessary to build their self-esteem and satisfy their will to power. They're cancers. One is enough to destroy the team. Filtering-out these bad seeds is the hardest and most important skill a hiring manager (or potential recruit) can develop. Mr. Suster's post isn't particularly helpful in identifying these most toxic individuals: they bind tightly to their hosts and stick through the disease they create, gaining greater responsibilities and better titles.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#62

Post by gigantosaurus »

rikthevik wrote: post #29
hxa7241 wrote: post #22

Salary is priced by the market, and that requires regular testing. Saying you don't want to hire regular job-changers is saying you don't want a functioning market. That, of course, is just what one would expect from companies who don't want to pay people what they are worth. Talk of 'loyalty' is effectively propaganda.

I've been asked for loyalty from companies many more times than I've ever been shown any. It's pretty rare that a company really sticks by their employees. For the younger generations, after watching their parents work 20+ years at the same organization and receive a cheap watch, they have no illusions about who will be providing the loyalty and who will be receiving it.

"Loyalty" is staying together and providing work or benefits even when it is financially a bad move. I've never in my life seen a company that is loyal to its employees.

Even not firing people in recession times, providing four monitors or free massages and lunches are not loyalty if they make workers more productive or attract better talent. It would be loyalty only when these actions cost the company much more than they benefit it, as a gift to the employees out of sheer good will.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#63

Post by abalashov »

Hmm. I changed jobs 6 times (5 companies) in 3 1/2 years, which averages to a job change every 6 months. Longest stint I had was about a year. As far as I can tell, I have not been noticeably penalised for it in my professional life.

It's definitely the fastest way to increase one's income, and you can't blame people for doing that. My first job was doing technical support (first full, then part-time) at $8.50/hr, and the subsequent 5 job changes were simply progressions to a very modest mid-level IT salary in the $50-$70k range. I don't think that's ridiculous.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#64

Post by alain94040 »

abalashov wrote: post #63

Hmm. I changed jobs 6 times (5 companies) in 3 1/2 years, which averages to a job change every 6 months. Longest stint I had was about a year. As far as I can tell, I have not been noticeably penalised for it in my professional life. It's definitely the fastest way to increase one's income, and you can't blame people for doing that. My first job was doing technical support (first full, then part-time) at $8.50/hr, an…

Your case is justified because you seem to be qualified for something better than what your starting job was. So job hopping made sense for you.

As a hiring manager, I would not hire someone who has been job hopping for the same position. Think of it as a twist on the Peter Principle.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#65

Post by count »

nearestneighbor wrote: post #49
3pt14159 wrote: post #48

While I empathize with employers that loose good people quickly ( Unless I took a signing bonus, both the employer and myself put a lot of effort into bringing me on board. I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to. Suster can go ahead and self select for stayers, this is capitalism after all, but he is going to lose out at the margin. Someone can actually get a ton of work done in two yea…

> I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to. I'm wondering if anyone ("rockstars", presumably) demanded that job interviews be treated as temp consulting gigs that need to be paid for.

Do you think 'rockstars' are 'interviewed' like plebes?

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#66

Post by gigantosaurus »

mattm wrote: post #43
ulrich wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a girl who has been changing boyfriends like her clothes in the past is more likely to do so in the future. Maybe that's because she doesn't fullfill her side of the equation in general.

Wouldn't it still be worth it to be with a great girl for only a few months?

I've heard similar advice about hiring people who are obviously over-qualified and will probably leave in 6 months. You have to use them not as workers, but as trainers and inspiration beacons for the rest of the team.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#67

Post by billswift »

gigantosaurus wrote: post #62
rikthevik wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been asked for loyalty from companies many more times than I've ever been shown any. It's pretty rare that a company really sticks by their employees. For the younger generations, after watching their parents work 20+ years at the same organization and receive a cheap watch, they have no illusions about who will be providing the loyalty and who will be receiving it.

"Loyalty" is staying together and providing work or benefits even when it is financially a bad move. I've never in my life seen a company that is loyal to its employees. Even not firing people in recession times, providing four monitors or free massages and lunches are not loyalty if they make workers more productive or attract better talent. It would be loyalty only when these actions cost the company much more than…

Part of a comment I left on the HN thread discussing Suster's post was "It was most often used when a builder had materials or a little cash available to avoid laying off good workers when there wasn't a contract job available." About builders building houses on-spec to keep together their core workers.

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#69

Post by [deleted] »

alain94040 wrote: post #64
abalashov wrote: post #63

Hmm. I changed jobs 6 times (5 companies) in 3 1/2 years, which averages to a job change every 6 months. Longest stint I had was about a year. As far as I can tell, I have not been noticeably penalised for it in my professional life. It's definitely the fastest way to increase one's income, and you can't blame people for doing that. My first job was doing technical support (first full, then part-time) at $8.50/hr, an…

Your case is justified because you seem to be qualified for something better than what your starting job was. So job hopping made sense for you. As a hiring manager, I would not hire someone who has been job hopping for the same position . Think of it as a twist on the Peter Principle.

[deleted]

Re: Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers

#70

Post by lsc »

nearestneighbor wrote: post #49
3pt14159 wrote: post #48

While I empathize with employers that loose good people quickly ( Unless I took a signing bonus, both the employer and myself put a lot of effort into bringing me on board. I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to. Suster can go ahead and self select for stayers, this is capitalism after all, but he is going to lose out at the margin. Someone can actually get a ton of work done in two yea…

> I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to. I'm wondering if anyone ("rockstars", presumably) demanded that job interviews be treated as temp consulting gigs that need to be paid for.

As an employer without a lot of credibility, I have been known to pay for interviews. (Now, usually these were interviews where I asked for work to get done, but those are the best kind of interviews, no?)

I don't understand why more places don't pay for interviews; it seems to make a lot of sense all around; I mean, this idea that a recruit will sacrifice the better part of a day to each potential employer speaks to a larger power imbalance between the two than I think exists, at least at the higher end.

Post reply on HN