5 ms·

So this person figured out the current meta-game of tech: jump jobs every 1-2 years early in your career to maximise comp. But that's not the whole story. Firs

So this person figured out the current meta-game of tech: jump jobs every 1-2 years early in your career to maximise comp. But that's not the whole story. First, this works in your early career where growth and learning are very fast, but at some level of seniority this strategy wont work as well. Second, I disagree that "what you do in between barely matters". Is like an athlete winning a medal and saying that those years of training were useless. That time is where you learn, grow, and get prepared for the next jump. If that's not the case, you are setting yourself up for failure. Third, the market is red-hot right now. It says more about the market than your personal abilities. It might not be always be like this. Fourth, companies are terrible at retaining talent, and sadly job hopping is often the easiest way to get a raise and a promotion. That's the point you got completely right.

quanto 5y ago
I totally agree with your 4 points. However, OP, in my interpretation, is arguing that the job change process is so much more dependent on those few hours of interview rather than career-long growth that career-long growth (or on-the-job performance) doesn't matter. Of course, interviews are meant to test candidates on their career development and growth as well, but in reality, it is uncertain whether they do, especially if they are focused on LeetCode/theory questions.
- secondaryacct 5y ago
  I dont know which domain you work in, but in banking everyone knows everyone and the interview either doesnt happen or doesnt lead to hiring if you ve been visibly slacking off.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Once I wanted a role change. I worked on it with my manager, tried to pick up work related to the new role, set career plans, all that stuff, for months. Couldn't quite get it done because I always wound up paying more attention to the duties of my current role than the one I wanted. Interviewed with a different group for the role I wanted and got it with a few hours of interviews. It was absolutely not the case that I learned anything relevant from my experience trying to switch roles on my current team. It absolutely was the case that the 3-4 hours of interviewing (plus luck of the draw on my interviewers and their questions) meant way more to my career than months of planning and effort.
odiroot 5y ago
> That time is where you learn, grow, and get prepared for the next jump. Also the best time to make friends and/or build your network. Let people remember you (in a positive way).
anotheryou 5y ago
> companies are terrible at retaining talent, and sadly job hopping is often the easiest way to get a raise and a promotion I wonder though if it's about hiring or about raises. Maybe it's the well paying companies that hire people who already get paid a relative lot and for the current employer that raise would be out of budget.
BlargMcLarg 5y ago
>Is like an athlete winning a medal and saying that those years of training were useless. That time is where you learn, grow, and get prepared for the next jump. If that's not the case, you are setting yourself up for failure. I don't think this comparison works at all. An athlete is attuning both their body and mind for years for an increase in the exact same activity. An employee is largely waiting for their time to shine hitting a challenging breakpoint, and practicing repetition of that challenge will have diminishing returns kick in very, very quickly. At the same time, the payoff for going beyond that diminishing returns is highly arguable. As an example, in most companies, the far majority of employees will spend months doing ridiculously similar, low scope issues. These low scope issues frequently have very, very little to do with what is expected in the next tier. Changing a few variables every day has much less in common with making a basic tool after analyzing requirements. Comparatively, a runner practicing for years is directly practicing to run faster, it's the same toolset more carefully honed. The far majority of us are waiting for those challenges to come up while doing those low scope, low pay-off issues. The common advice is to "seek those challenges yourself" or to "do the low stuff faster so you can get more challenging things quicker" is cute, but doesn't nearly apply in practice as often as the frequency of this advice makes one think. Think of bureaucracy, managers getting in the way, petty office politics, bottlenecks, and more. Which only leaves practicing in one's own time. From the way I read it, OP is saying that there's far more of a difference between what one learns during those small challenging periods of time than the downtime of repetition compared to other fields. Which shouldn't be a surprise as software dev is largely a field of practicing mental challenges and logic puzzles, not honing physical skills.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  For me, I always incorporated something interesting and new into the small projects. While maybe not necessary to use Pandas or an ARG parse framework, or even Redis caching, I found by adding little things like these to smaller projects I was able to maintain interest and motivation. While counterintuitive, I also usually delivered a better product even though a tool I wanted to learn was a bit shoehorned in. Now I'm about four years in, competent and confident. 100% worth it.

quanto 5y ago

I totally agree with your 4 points. However, OP, in my interpretation, is arguing that the job change process is so much more dependent on those few hours of interview rather than career-long growth that career-long growth (or on-the-job performance) doesn't matter. Of course, interviews are meant to test candidates on their career development and growth as well, but in reality, it is uncertain whether they do, especially if they are focused on LeetCode/theory questions.

secondaryacct 5y ago
I dont know which domain you work in, but in banking everyone knows everyone and the interview either doesnt happen or doesnt lead to hiring if you ve been visibly slacking off.
ALittleLight 5y ago
Once I wanted a role change. I worked on it with my manager, tried to pick up work related to the new role, set career plans, all that stuff, for months. Couldn't quite get it done because I always wound up paying more attention to the duties of my current role than the one I wanted. Interviewed with a different group for the role I wanted and got it with a few hours of interviews. It was absolutely not the case that I learned anything relevant from my experience trying to switch roles on my current team. It absolutely was the case that the 3-4 hours of interviewing (plus luck of the draw on my interviewers and their questions) meant way more to my career than months of planning and effort.

odiroot 5y ago

> That time is where you learn, grow, and get prepared for the next jump. Also the best time to make friends and/or build your network. Let people remember you (in a positive way).

anotheryou 5y ago

> companies are terrible at retaining talent, and sadly job hopping is often the easiest way to get a raise and a promotion I wonder though if it's about hiring or about raises. Maybe it's the well paying companies that hire people who already get paid a relative lot and for the current employer that raise would be out of budget.

BlargMcLarg 5y ago

>Is like an athlete winning a medal and saying that those years of training were useless. That time is where you learn, grow, and get prepared for the next jump. If that's not the case, you are setting yourself up for failure. I don't think this comparison works at all. An athlete is attuning both their body and mind for years for an increase in the exact same activity. An employee is largely waiting for their time to shine hitting a challenging breakpoint, and practicing repetition of that challenge will have diminishing returns kick in very, very quickly. At the same time, the payoff for going beyond that diminishing returns is highly arguable. As an example, in most companies, the far majority of employees will spend months doing ridiculously similar, low scope issues. These low scope issues frequently have very, very little to do with what is expected in the next tier. Changing a few variables every day has much less in common with making a basic tool after analyzing requirements. Comparatively, a runner practicing for years is directly practicing to run faster, it's the same toolset more carefully honed. The far majority of us are waiting for those challenges to come up while doing those low scope, low pay-off issues. The common advice is to "seek those challenges yourself" or to "do the low stuff faster so you can get more challenging things quicker" is cute, but doesn't nearly apply in practice as often as the frequency of this advice makes one think. Think of bureaucracy, managers getting in the way, petty office politics, bottlenecks, and more. Which only leaves practicing in one's own time. From the way I read it, OP is saying that there's far more of a difference between what one learns during those small challenging periods of time than the downtime of repetition compared to other fields. Which shouldn't be a surprise as software dev is largely a field of practicing mental challenges and logic puzzles, not honing physical skills.

reedjosh 5y ago
For me, I always incorporated something interesting and new into the small projects. While maybe not necessary to use Pandas or an ARG parse framework, or even Redis caching, I found by adding little things like these to smaller projects I was able to maintain interest and motivation. While counterintuitive, I also usually delivered a better product even though a tool I wanted to learn was a bit shoehorned in. Now I'm about four years in, competent and confident. 100% worth it.