5 ms·

You post this all the time. You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable

You post this all the time. You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable. It isn't your age, as so many others on this chain have pointed out. You didn't build your CV to be attractive to new employers at all, and when eventually that became relevant again, you were out of luck. I read your posts whenever I see them, it's obvious you're quite bright. I really don't understand how you don't see this.

Dumblydorr 5y ago
Why does doing 27 years at one company make someone unhireable? It's one thing if he used the same old tech for 27 years, but without that assumption, seems like ageism to say 27 years at one company is an obvious ground for disqualification.
- Icathian 5y ago
  After a thousand threads on why tech hiring is hard, I don't think I need to re-hash that getting signal from noise is complex and imperfect. Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired? It isn't ageism, again go read the rest of this thread. It's the nature of making yourself an attractive candidate. If you don't care to play the game, you can't pout and cry "ageism" when you lose the game.
  - tlamponi 5y ago
    > After a thousand threads on why tech hiring is hard, I don't think I need to re-hash that getting signal from noise is complex and imperfect. Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired? One can also take this as: "this person jumps jobs often, everything I invest in them will probably have not a good/long ROI" vs. "this person was a loyal employee that was so good he was kept for decades" A few jumps surely do not hurt, are even good to get some different POVs and such, but if we get people that were barely one or two years at a company at max it always rings a few alarm bells. But, either way its generalization, the reasons for why either situation happened are relevant to make a sensible decision. I.e., the answer to "why switch so often?" or "why stuck for so long and why now?" are key.
    - honkdaddy 5y ago
      > I.e., the answer to "why switch so often?" or "why stuck for so long and why now?" are key. This is really the key. As another anecdotal datapoint to add to this thread, I've held three SWE positions over the past four years and will be starting my fourth, at Google, next month. Naturally the recruiters and hiring managers asked about the short stints at each company, but given that my reasons for each departure were reasonable (company acquisition, COVID, and location), they didn't have any objections.
  - victords 5y ago
    > Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired? Why is the assumption not the opposite? "This person failed at 8 companies" vs "This person was success at one for almost three decades"? Why is it a sign of success if you are at a company for a short stay before going to the next? If anything, I'd imagine that a short stay would be more likely related to getting PIPd or unable to get promoted/grow there.
    - dagmx 5y ago
      Your counterpoint is valid only if reviewers are looking at the number of companies. Resumes usually include the list of major achievements at that role. It's the combination of the two that people look for. Looking at just quantitative things like number of companies is terrible. Looking at the combination of qualitative and quantitative aspects of a CV/Resume are what make for an attractive candidate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
quadrifoliate 5y ago
> You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable. Next time you hear someone complain about why programmers jump jobs ever 2 years, point them to this cynical and stereotyping comment. In my opinion this is no different from saying "What, you didn't graduate from college? Well, obviously you are unhireable", but I bet 'Icathian would be much less likely to say that to a non college-educated programmer looking for work. For some reason, stereotyping based on tenure, which correlates strongly to age, just seems to fly wild in our industry.
- Icathian 5y ago
  I said nothing about what is fair, or what should be. I'm describing what is. Programmers jump jobs every 2-4 years (myself included) because it's the best way to reliably get good pay increases, and because staying more than 10 years at one company often makes it harder to get hired at the next place. You can blame me for recognizing that all you want, but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. I want it to always be easy to find lucrative, interesting work, and I'm willing to play the game to keep it that way for myself. I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    > but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. Doesn't make it right. Just sayin'...
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    > it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry There are a lot of bad things about our industry, repeating the stereotypes that lead to them is still harmful. Which brings me to... > I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly. Simple: If you were in a a position where you were screening resumes, I think you would rule out people with long tenures purely on the basis that the tenure was long. I am saying that this amounts to age-based discrimination, and you should think about it rather than parroting the assertion "Obviously you're unhireable, you worked somewhere for 27 years". And even if you refuse to think about this, my hope is that other commenters will. And maybe, just maybe next time they see a resume with 27 years of experience at one company, they will think "Wow, this person will bring an interesting point of view to the team – they have been through 5 times the tenure of an average VP and have seen the rise and fall of several projects. Let's hire them!"
inimino 5y ago
> anyone would be unhireable So since you are defending the practice, please explain what is it about spending your entire career at a single company that makes you unemployable anywhere else. And please don't assume that that means never learning anything new during 27 years. Can you name another career where holding one job too long makes you unemployable, and where people actually defend this?
- Icathian 5y ago
  You're conflating recognizing reality with defending a given hiring practice. I've responded to other comments with more detail.
encloser 5y ago
It really depends on what those experiences were at the same employer. I'm not the OP and not in the same boat. But I've been at the same employer for more than 30 years.
- Icathian 5y ago
  It should depend on that, and perhaps to some degree it does. But in even the best case scenario, where every few years was brand new knowledge, you've still put the obstacle in your path of convincing new hiring managers of that when their default assumption may be otherwise. You've added a degree of difficulty (we could quibble about how much of one but whatever) to the process that didn't need to be there.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
> so proudly and often Not proudly, but often. Be nice. I thought we were supposed to be nicer to each other here, than in other Internet venues, but I'm often wrong. > You didn't build your CV to be attractive to new employers at all I see things differently. Don't forget that I was a hiring manager for most of that time. My CV reflects what I would have considered to be a "dream employee" for most of that time. It is not one that current companies find attractive, and that's actually (IMNSHO) a real problem, in today's industry. In most other industries, it would have been a "We need to get this guy on board right now" kind of thing. In tech, it's "He spent all that time at one company? He must be terrible, and insecure." I am quite aware that having spent 27 years at one company is actually considered a bad thing. I really do see how the industry works. I won't change my expectations to meet the new reality. If no one wants me, then I'll do my own thing. I'm very grateful to have that option, and my heart goes out to the folks that don't have that option.
- Icathian 5y ago
  > Not proudly, but often. Be nice. Apologies. I struggle when people I respect seem to miss things that are obvious to me, I should have kept my tone in check better. Fair enough. If the winning move for you is not to play, that's hardly a bad choice. I don't think it would work for me.
circlefavshape 5y ago
> After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable I've been with my current employer for 4 years, and all going well I'll stay with them until retirement (I'm almost 50 now, so another 15-odd years). The pay is good (for where I live), the work is varied and mostly interesting. It'd seem a bit crazy to jump ship just in case they take against me at some point in the future, no?
- Icathian 5y ago
  I think it would be in your case, but it is something of a gamble, isn't it. At some point I'll hit the job I want to (and think I have a good shot at) retiring from and probably try for it myself. I'm not really sure how that'll look for me. Making that call at 50 is a lot different than making it in your early 30s, I would think?
  - circlefavshape 5y ago
    I guess everything is a gamble :/
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> You post this all the time. You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable IT is a sick twisted industry.

Dumblydorr 5y ago

Why does doing 27 years at one company make someone unhireable? It's one thing if he used the same old tech for 27 years, but without that assumption, seems like ageism to say 27 years at one company is an obvious ground for disqualification.

Icathian 5y ago
After a thousand threads on why tech hiring is hard, I don't think I need to re-hash that getting signal from noise is complex and imperfect. Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired? It isn't ageism, again go read the rest of this thread. It's the nature of making yourself an attractive candidate. If you don't care to play the game, you can't pout and cry "ageism" when you lose the game.
- tlamponi 5y ago
  > After a thousand threads on why tech hiring is hard, I don't think I need to re-hash that getting signal from noise is complex and imperfect. Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired? One can also take this as: "this person jumps jobs often, everything I invest in them will probably have not a good/long ROI" vs. "this person was a loyal employee that was so good he was kept for decades" A few jumps surely do not hurt, are even good to get some different POVs and such, but if we get people that were barely one or two years at a company at max it always rings a few alarm bells. But, either way its generalization, the reasons for why either situation happened are relevant to make a sensible decision. I.e., the answer to "why switch so often?" or "why stuck for so long and why now?" are key.
  - honkdaddy 5y ago
    > I.e., the answer to "why switch so often?" or "why stuck for so long and why now?" are key. This is really the key. As another anecdotal datapoint to add to this thread, I've held three SWE positions over the past four years and will be starting my fourth, at Google, next month. Naturally the recruiters and hiring managers asked about the short stints at each company, but given that my reasons for each departure were reasonable (company acquisition, COVID, and location), they didn't have any objections.
- victords 5y ago
  > Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired? Why is the assumption not the opposite? "This person failed at 8 companies" vs "This person was success at one for almost three decades"? Why is it a sign of success if you are at a company for a short stay before going to the next? If anything, I'd imagine that a short stay would be more likely related to getting PIPd or unable to get promoted/grow there.
  - dagmx 5y ago
    Your counterpoint is valid only if reviewers are looking at the number of companies. Resumes usually include the list of major achievements at that role. It's the combination of the two that people look for. Looking at just quantitative things like number of companies is terrible. Looking at the combination of qualitative and quantitative aspects of a CV/Resume are what make for an attractive candidate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

quadrifoliate 5y ago

> You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable. Next time you hear someone complain about why programmers jump jobs ever 2 years, point them to this cynical and stereotyping comment. In my opinion this is no different from saying "What, you didn't graduate from college? Well, obviously you are unhireable", but I bet 'Icathian would be much less likely to say that to a non college-educated programmer looking for work. For some reason, stereotyping based on tenure, which correlates strongly to age, just seems to fly wild in our industry.

Icathian 5y ago
I said nothing about what is fair, or what should be. I'm describing what is. Programmers jump jobs every 2-4 years (myself included) because it's the best way to reliably get good pay increases, and because staying more than 10 years at one company often makes it harder to get hired at the next place. You can blame me for recognizing that all you want, but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. I want it to always be easy to find lucrative, interesting work, and I'm willing to play the game to keep it that way for myself. I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  > but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. Doesn't make it right. Just sayin'...
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  > it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry There are a lot of bad things about our industry, repeating the stereotypes that lead to them is still harmful. Which brings me to... > I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly. Simple: If you were in a a position where you were screening resumes, I think you would rule out people with long tenures purely on the basis that the tenure was long. I am saying that this amounts to age-based discrimination, and you should think about it rather than parroting the assertion "Obviously you're unhireable, you worked somewhere for 27 years". And even if you refuse to think about this, my hope is that other commenters will. And maybe, just maybe next time they see a resume with 27 years of experience at one company, they will think "Wow, this person will bring an interesting point of view to the team – they have been through 5 times the tenure of an average VP and have seen the rise and fall of several projects. Let's hire them!"

inimino 5y ago

> anyone would be unhireable So since you are defending the practice, please explain what is it about spending your entire career at a single company that makes you unemployable anywhere else. And please don't assume that that means never learning anything new during 27 years. Can you name another career where holding one job too long makes you unemployable, and where people actually defend this?

Icathian 5y ago
You're conflating recognizing reality with defending a given hiring practice. I've responded to other comments with more detail.

encloser 5y ago

It really depends on what those experiences were at the same employer. I'm not the OP and not in the same boat. But I've been at the same employer for more than 30 years.

Icathian 5y ago
It should depend on that, and perhaps to some degree it does. But in even the best case scenario, where every few years was brand new knowledge, you've still put the obstacle in your path of convincing new hiring managers of that when their default assumption may be otherwise. You've added a degree of difficulty (we could quibble about how much of one but whatever) to the process that didn't need to be there.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

> so proudly and often Not proudly, but often. Be nice. I thought we were supposed to be nicer to each other here, than in other Internet venues, but I'm often wrong. > You didn't build your CV to be attractive to new employers at all I see things differently. Don't forget that I was a hiring manager for most of that time. My CV reflects what I would have considered to be a "dream employee" for most of that time. It is not one that current companies find attractive, and that's actually (IMNSHO) a real problem, in today's industry. In most other industries, it would have been a "We need to get this guy on board right now" kind of thing. In tech, it's "He spent all that time at one company? He must be terrible, and insecure." I am quite aware that having spent 27 years at one company is actually considered a bad thing. I really do see how the industry works. I won't change my expectations to meet the new reality. If no one wants me, then I'll do my own thing. I'm very grateful to have that option, and my heart goes out to the folks that don't have that option.

Icathian 5y ago
> Not proudly, but often. Be nice. Apologies. I struggle when people I respect seem to miss things that are obvious to me, I should have kept my tone in check better. Fair enough. If the winning move for you is not to play, that's hardly a bad choice. I don't think it would work for me.

circlefavshape 5y ago

> After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable I've been with my current employer for 4 years, and all going well I'll stay with them until retirement (I'm almost 50 now, so another 15-odd years). The pay is good (for where I live), the work is varied and mostly interesting. It'd seem a bit crazy to jump ship just in case they take against me at some point in the future, no?

Icathian 5y ago
I think it would be in your case, but it is something of a gamble, isn't it. At some point I'll hit the job I want to (and think I have a good shot at) retiring from and probably try for it myself. I'm not really sure how that'll look for me. Making that call at 50 is a lot different than making it in your early 30s, I would think?
- circlefavshape 5y ago
  I guess everything is a gamble :/

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> You post this all the time. You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable IT is a sick twisted industry.