4 ms·

Flakes are often Job Hoppers. Not all Job Hoppers are Flakes. Finally, someone taking a shot at that misconception. Just because some people advance their care

Flakes are often Job Hoppers. Not all Job Hoppers are Flakes. Finally, someone taking a shot at that misconception. Just because some people advance their career and improve their conditions by changing employers doesn't mean they're unreliable or incompetent. Quite often it's the competent people who get sick and tired of a crappy job, widespread incompetence, excessive office politics and stuff like that and they decide to move on. They tie the loose ends, dot the i's, cross the t's and start looking for a better opportunity. It's not just the startups that mislead people, either. It's just that a big company will lie to you about other kinds of stuff.

smallblacksun 16y ago
"doesn't mean they're unreliable" Well, from the point of view of an employer, it kind of does. They never know when you will leave for a new job.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  I disagree - if the hoppers are hopping because they are not getting the professional growth they need, or that they think they're being taken advantage of, then that's highly predictable for you as an employer. Are you treating your employees fairly? Do they feel like they're contributing, or are they writing dead-end code? You know when they will leave for a new job - when you start treating them like trash.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Here's a prediction: If a company's environment is shitty... 1. The best people will quit. 2. The median people will whine and make the office a miserable place. 3. The worst people will put their heads down, terrified that they will get fired or laid off. Consequence? The best people still in their chairs will be the ones with the lowest morale.
raganwald 16y ago
Part of the problem is the word "flake," it such a bad choice in this context. It's reasonable to skip over someone who is overqualified for a position. If it really won't challenge them and you can't pay them market rate for their talent, and there isn't a huge upside in responsibility... The odds are that they won't be around long, and that doesn't mean they're a bad person or someone who can't get things done. OTOH, the correlation != causation thing is huge as well. One of the reasons some people stay for long periods in one place is that they aren't that marketable because they really don't do much. Nobody is taking them out for coffee on a regular basis and gently trying to poach them. Sometimes the people who move most often are the ones who have the most choices. Sure, you can label them as "lacking loyalty" or some such, but you cannot assume that those who don't move are automatically loyal. They simply may have stayed in one place because they had very little opportunity to advance by moving.

smallblacksun 16y ago

"doesn't mean they're unreliable" Well, from the point of view of an employer, it kind of does. They never know when you will leave for a new job.

potatolicious 16y ago
I disagree - if the hoppers are hopping because they are not getting the professional growth they need, or that they think they're being taken advantage of, then that's highly predictable for you as an employer. Are you treating your employees fairly? Do they feel like they're contributing, or are they writing dead-end code? You know when they will leave for a new job - when you start treating them like trash.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Here's a prediction: If a company's environment is shitty... 1. The best people will quit. 2. The median people will whine and make the office a miserable place. 3. The worst people will put their heads down, terrified that they will get fired or laid off. Consequence? The best people still in their chairs will be the ones with the lowest morale.

raganwald 16y ago

Part of the problem is the word "flake," it such a bad choice in this context. It's reasonable to skip over someone who is overqualified for a position. If it really won't challenge them and you can't pay them market rate for their talent, and there isn't a huge upside in responsibility... The odds are that they won't be around long, and that doesn't mean they're a bad person or someone who can't get things done. OTOH, the correlation != causation thing is huge as well. One of the reasons some people stay for long periods in one place is that they aren't that marketable because they really don't do much. Nobody is taking them out for coffee on a regular basis and gently trying to poach them. Sometimes the people who move most often are the ones who have the most choices. Sure, you can label them as "lacking loyalty" or some such, but you cannot assume that those who don't move are automatically loyal. They simply may have stayed in one place because they had very little opportunity to advance by moving.