4 ms·

There are two types of red flags that can come out of frequent job changes: 1. Several <1 year tenures - this person gets fired a lot 2. Exclusively 1-2 year

There are two types of red flags that can come out of frequent job changes: 1. Several <1 year tenures - this person gets fired a lot 2. Exclusively 1-2 year tenures - This person is trying to jump around to maximize salary (and isn't able to convince their current employer to match/exceed an offer) For #1 job history is usually not the only indication that this will be a problem. Depending on how many open positions you have they might make a screen, with the vast majority washing out there. "It was contract work" is usually a flag, and being at startups that went under is a mitigating factor. #2 is somewhat more risky as a hiring manager - more expensive to interview because they are less likely to flame out early in the process, but then much more likely to not be able to agree on an acceptable offer. Overall these folks are still going to be net positive contributors over their tenure, but there is opportunity cost in missing out on hiring someone who would kick ass over 5+ years at your company. It's hard to definitively pin someone down as this category outside of 4+ jobs never going more than 2 years. If they are coming through a recruiter that's a flag, and if they have moved cities that's somewhat of a mitigating factor. Seeing someone who stayed at the same company for 4+ years and got one or more promotions there is a big plus on resumes. There is not a lot of research into any of this stuff AFAIK, so this is basically all just my opinion. What I have seen basically says that people are pretty bad and inconsistent at evaluating resumes: http://blog.alinelerner.com/resumes-suck-heres-the-data/ http://blog.alinelerner.com/resumes-suck-heres-the-data/

35bge57dtjku 10y ago
> "It was contract work" is usually a flag Why is that? Aren't there tons of contract jobs, at least in certain areas? > If they are coming through a recruiter that's a flag Why is that?
- itsdrewmiller 10y ago
  It's been my experience that people with a lot of contract work usually end up being copy-paste style programmers who can't make it through our interviews. Not 100% by any means. Coming through a recruiter means that a) the recruiting contingency fee could end up actually meaning you paid 20% more for the year you get, b) the person feels the need to scale out their effort to find new jobs so confirms my fear about their job history somewhat, and c) means there is another person who may be reaching out to them in a year or two to actively try to get them to leave. This is super sketchy behavior on the part of the recruiting firm, but some of them have such bad internal controls and turnover problems themselves that they will consistently attempt this.
st3v3r 10y ago
"2. Exclusively 1-2 year tenures - This person is trying to jump around to maximize salary (and isn't able to convince their current employer to match/exceed an offer)" Isn't the conventional wisdom that, even if you are able to convince your current employer to match, that you shouldn't take their offer? Most employers have already decided you're "not loyal", and as such will be looking to get rid of you.
- itsdrewmiller 10y ago
  That is the conventional wisdom but I don't think it is universally correct. It's probably better to say that they generally didn't solve their compensation concerns in a way that kept them at the company though - either they didn't bring it up at all, or they did and didn't succeed. Whether they do that by generating another job offer or not is secondary.
- smileysteve 10y ago
  > Isn't the conventional wisdom that, even if you are able to convince your current employer to match, that you shouldn't take their offer? Most employers have already decided you're "not loyal", and as such will be looking to get rid of you. You can frame it 2 different ways: * I have an offer that if you don't beat, I'll leave * I've been considering my market value, like working here, and would like you to recognize what I add to the business. The 2nd way allows an employer to pay you more - and the employee to stay there because they didn't see themselves in the other rule.
edem 10y ago
> 1. Several <1 year tenures - this person gets fired a lot I disagree. I have several half-year tenures and I was never fired from a job. I also disagree with 2. If you start with $N and an other company offers you $2N after 1 year there is no chance that your current employee will give you a x2 raise. For example at bigger companies there is a policy for that.

35bge57dtjku 10y ago

> "It was contract work" is usually a flag Why is that? Aren't there tons of contract jobs, at least in certain areas? > If they are coming through a recruiter that's a flag Why is that?

itsdrewmiller 10y ago
It's been my experience that people with a lot of contract work usually end up being copy-paste style programmers who can't make it through our interviews. Not 100% by any means. Coming through a recruiter means that a) the recruiting contingency fee could end up actually meaning you paid 20% more for the year you get, b) the person feels the need to scale out their effort to find new jobs so confirms my fear about their job history somewhat, and c) means there is another person who may be reaching out to them in a year or two to actively try to get them to leave. This is super sketchy behavior on the part of the recruiting firm, but some of them have such bad internal controls and turnover problems themselves that they will consistently attempt this.

st3v3r 10y ago

"2. Exclusively 1-2 year tenures - This person is trying to jump around to maximize salary (and isn't able to convince their current employer to match/exceed an offer)" Isn't the conventional wisdom that, even if you are able to convince your current employer to match, that you shouldn't take their offer? Most employers have already decided you're "not loyal", and as such will be looking to get rid of you.

itsdrewmiller 10y ago
That is the conventional wisdom but I don't think it is universally correct. It's probably better to say that they generally didn't solve their compensation concerns in a way that kept them at the company though - either they didn't bring it up at all, or they did and didn't succeed. Whether they do that by generating another job offer or not is secondary.
smileysteve 10y ago
> Isn't the conventional wisdom that, even if you are able to convince your current employer to match, that you shouldn't take their offer? Most employers have already decided you're "not loyal", and as such will be looking to get rid of you. You can frame it 2 different ways: * I have an offer that if you don't beat, I'll leave * I've been considering my market value, like working here, and would like you to recognize what I add to the business. The 2nd way allows an employer to pay you more - and the employee to stay there because they didn't see themselves in the other rule.

edem 10y ago

> 1. Several <1 year tenures - this person gets fired a lot I disagree. I have several half-year tenures and I was never fired from a job. I also disagree with 2. If you start with $N and an other company offers you $2N after 1 year there is no chance that your current employee will give you a x2 raise. For example at bigger companies there is a policy for that.