3 ms·

>> 80 per cent of tech professionals don’t think they will be working for the same company in two years. That is a lot. I am of the current opinion that I will

>> 80 per cent of tech professionals don’t think they will be working for the same company in two years. That is a lot. I am of the current opinion that I will try to get a job offer every year and if I can't refuse it, I won't. Some people warn me job hopping looks bad on a resume, but I disagree and I think the article makes my point >>“People changing jobs every year or two can be seen by employers as a red flag but, actually, it shows these people are ambitious, adaptable and knowledgeable, traits that every employer looks for.” Plus this is the sort of thing that works itself out. If it looks bad on a resume no one will hire me until I have been in a place long enoungh

glouwbug 5y ago
Well I mean tech tenure is what, like, 8-20 months anyway? We’re not building bridges; software projects complete quicker on average than your average megastructure. People move on once the project is done
- tdeck 5y ago
  In what sector of "tech"? Perhaps it's sample bias, but I've never observed this behavior (leaving after less than 12 months, or after your first project) in any of my peers. I could definitely see that for contractors but people who leave that early usually don't do it voluntarily.
  - glouwbug 5y ago
    Certainly - if years of JIRA bug crushing appeals to the onlooker, power to them. I personally find myself either exhausted or bored after 18 months. This is about the time I've learned as much as the job can offer without the need of extensive force (adhering to the 80 / 20 rule, at the very least)
schoolornot 5y ago
How do you gauge when it's time to leave? What indicators do you use?
arpa 5y ago
I am currently in process of getting a very lucrative offer; one of my major considerations was that I've only been in the current position for 7 mo. Your comment was very reassuring for me. However, I have once been declined a position for not having worked enough at (then) current place, and have been asked about whether I would also leave the company in a year or so.
- GianFabien 5y ago
  The question that should be asked is why are good staff worth more to the other organisation? If you are doing good work, then surely the current employer should be willing to give you a suitable pay rise that will disincentivate you from changing jobs. It does cost them more to hire a replacement but apparently that is too complicated for the average PHB to grasp.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > The question that should be asked is why are good staff worth more to the other organisation? Because management is betting that total dollars saved from not raising everyone’s wages is more than total dollars spent on hiring and training and other costs of people going to work elsewhere. It is not too complicated for the average PHB (what is that?) to grasp. It is known that many people will not leave or shop around for higher wages, so the bet is that letting a few people go is worth it. This especially works out for employers in environments where coworkers can and are expected to take on the duties of the person that left. In that case, hiring someone new does not cost the employer much.
    - MattGaiser 5y ago
      Pointy haired boss.

glouwbug 5y ago

Well I mean tech tenure is what, like, 8-20 months anyway? We’re not building bridges; software projects complete quicker on average than your average megastructure. People move on once the project is done

tdeck 5y ago
In what sector of "tech"? Perhaps it's sample bias, but I've never observed this behavior (leaving after less than 12 months, or after your first project) in any of my peers. I could definitely see that for contractors but people who leave that early usually don't do it voluntarily.
- glouwbug 5y ago
  Certainly - if years of JIRA bug crushing appeals to the onlooker, power to them. I personally find myself either exhausted or bored after 18 months. This is about the time I've learned as much as the job can offer without the need of extensive force (adhering to the 80 / 20 rule, at the very least)

schoolornot 5y ago

How do you gauge when it's time to leave? What indicators do you use?

arpa 5y ago

I am currently in process of getting a very lucrative offer; one of my major considerations was that I've only been in the current position for 7 mo. Your comment was very reassuring for me. However, I have once been declined a position for not having worked enough at (then) current place, and have been asked about whether I would also leave the company in a year or so.

GianFabien 5y ago
The question that should be asked is why are good staff worth more to the other organisation? If you are doing good work, then surely the current employer should be willing to give you a suitable pay rise that will disincentivate you from changing jobs. It does cost them more to hire a replacement but apparently that is too complicated for the average PHB to grasp.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > The question that should be asked is why are good staff worth more to the other organisation? Because management is betting that total dollars saved from not raising everyone’s wages is more than total dollars spent on hiring and training and other costs of people going to work elsewhere. It is not too complicated for the average PHB (what is that?) to grasp. It is known that many people will not leave or shop around for higher wages, so the bet is that letting a few people go is worth it. This especially works out for employers in environments where coworkers can and are expected to take on the duties of the person that left. In that case, hiring someone new does not cost the employer much.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    Pointy haired boss.