3 ms·

With a few exceptions, yes, it will likely hurt your long term prospects. The reason is pretty straightforward. If I, as a manager, see that you have a history

With a few exceptions, yes, it will likely hurt your long term prospects. The reason is pretty straightforward. If I, as a manager, see that you have a history of 1-2 year tenures, It's sensible for me to assume that that's what you'll do at my company too. The more senior the position, the longer term the work usually is. So, if you're making decisions for 5-10 years but are only going to be around for 2, what's the likelihood you'll be making good long term decisions rather than good (for your resume) short term decisions? There are, of course, exceptions to this. If, say, you specialise in turning around failed departments then serial short tenures may well make perfect sense. But, in general, the shorter the expected tenure, the lower the expected benefit vs cost. Of course, that's not to say that hiring someone who has 10 years at a previous company means that they'll stay forever. But, as a hiring manager, you're taking plenty of risks as it is. It's usually safer to hire someone with a few reasonably long tenures all things considered. And that's really the point. If the rest of your resume is outstanding for the role, then I may just accept that I have you for 2 years tops. But if it's on a par with the market then I have little incentive to hire you versus someone less risky. Source, am reasonably senior manager at a large company and have hired a lot of people over the years.

jstx1 4y ago
I don't think longer tenures are as positive of a signal as you're making them out to be. - You can essentially have 1 year experience repeated n times. - People with very long tenures can have a narrower view of what software development is. By switching more often you get to be exposed to different domains, teams, managers, ways of working and in a way you can mentally abstract over them instead of learning the process of 1 specific company. At some point you get "better at the company" instead of better at software development. - Staying at a place for a long time doesn't mean that you get to make important long term decisions. Getting to make important decisions doesn't mean that you're good at it. - In a competitive dynamic market some of the people who don't switch are people who can't switch because they just aren't that good. Obviously not true for everyone but that's the group you're sampling from. If you think of it as having a bucket of balls to pull from at random, the bucket with the people with short tenures will contain some people that are flaky, unreliable, get bored too easily, are difficult to work with and can't keep a job etc. And the bucket of people with long tenures will contain some people that aren't good enough to land a new job, or who are essentially institutionalized. And I'm not even arguiing that shorter tenures are better - you could make some arguments either way - I just don't think that making hiring decisions based on tenure is a good idea either way.
- djohnston 4y ago
  I think if every tenure is less than two years it's a red flag for a senior position. Anyone can get by for a year but if you're around for two you'll inevitably need to deal with conflict resolution and maintaining relationships and products. If you can't stick around two years anywhere I'm prone to thinking you're someone who vomits a bunch of code and then leaves the team to pick up your mess. Or someone who can't provide critical feedback without sabotaging the relationship. Either is a no go for a senior position.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    > If you can't stick around two years anywhere I'm prone to thinking you're someone who vomits a bunch of code and then leaves the team to pick up your mess. Or someone who can't provide critical feedback without sabotaging the relationship. In another comment in this same thread you wrote: > people tend to leave if they aren't getting promotions, growing responsibilities, etc. So you already know that it's entirely possible that someone is doing great (doesn't vomit code that can't be maintained, doesn't ruin relationships) and still leaves a job after a year or two. So I don't get why you then assume the worst case when you see shorter tenures, that doesn't make sense to me.
    - tharkun__ 4y ago
      I think you're both correct so to speak :) If someone has 20 years of overall experience and only ever stayed at a company for one year, I will default to an orange flag and will have to ask lots of questions about that. If someone has 20 years of experience and has only ever worked at one company, I will default to an orange flag and will have to ask lots of questions about it. All of what you guys say can be true but doesn't have to be. The guy with only ~1 year tenures might have found awesome 20-50% salary increases by hopping around and made financially smart decisions to be able to have time work for him (compounding). He may also just be the dumb kid that's really not good at this and left a week before he would have been fired anyway each time. He switched to contracting at the end because "it raises less flags" The guy with 20 years at one company might have only gotten promoted because he's at a company where long tenure gets you promoted but doesn't know much. A perpetual junior with 20 years of "experience". Or he lucked into an awesome company with a good internal promotion culture and long tenures overall, which also results in less opportunities to get promoted (you need someone to move on/away so that a spot frees up so to speak), got promoted every 3-4 years and is now at the end of what he can get to at that company and made the decision to leave.
_qzu4 4y ago
The unfortunately thing is that most large companies are bad at retaining people. The quickest way to increase your compensation is to change jobs every 3-4 years. I think in 2022, it's much less taboo to move between companies.
only_throwing 4y ago
Thanks for your answer. Maybe many people are biased towards less risky professionals, which means having years of tenure at medium/large companies with a couple promotions sprinkled here and there. I don't think this is a good indicator, but I'm biased as well!
rco8786 4y ago
As a counterpoint, I sit on multiple hiring bars every week and have never once seen a candidate be rejected because of job hopping past. I always check, and I always bring it up, but it is a tertiary concern at best. Though I personally agree with your assessment.
- dmlittle 4y ago
  I was given the chance to vet my future manager once. I was presented with a candidate that had been in 11 different companies over the course of 8 years. We passed on them as soon as I pointed this out. Job hopping a few times is not a bad thing by itself but the reason why you’re doing so might be. In my case I didn’t want to hire a new manager only to repeat the process again in 6 months (their track record suggested they’d do it again). There’s also a _huge_ difference between having 8 years of experience and 8 first year experiences. As pointed out by GP the hard and complicated things/decisions come after a while in the job and you’ve onboarded and gotten context.
- only_throwing 4y ago
  Would you mind sharing if it's at startups, large companies with younger or older professionals?
  - rco8786 4y ago
    Large co. Wide range of experience/age though worth noting that it’s ~85% IC roles rather than leadership.

jstx1 4y ago

I don't think longer tenures are as positive of a signal as you're making them out to be. - You can essentially have 1 year experience repeated n times. - People with very long tenures can have a narrower view of what software development is. By switching more often you get to be exposed to different domains, teams, managers, ways of working and in a way you can mentally abstract over them instead of learning the process of 1 specific company. At some point you get "better at the company" instead of better at software development. - Staying at a place for a long time doesn't mean that you get to make important long term decisions. Getting to make important decisions doesn't mean that you're good at it. - In a competitive dynamic market some of the people who don't switch are people who can't switch because they just aren't that good. Obviously not true for everyone but that's the group you're sampling from. If you think of it as having a bucket of balls to pull from at random, the bucket with the people with short tenures will contain some people that are flaky, unreliable, get bored too easily, are difficult to work with and can't keep a job etc. And the bucket of people with long tenures will contain some people that aren't good enough to land a new job, or who are essentially institutionalized. And I'm not even arguiing that shorter tenures are better - you could make some arguments either way - I just don't think that making hiring decisions based on tenure is a good idea either way.

djohnston 4y ago
I think if every tenure is less than two years it's a red flag for a senior position. Anyone can get by for a year but if you're around for two you'll inevitably need to deal with conflict resolution and maintaining relationships and products. If you can't stick around two years anywhere I'm prone to thinking you're someone who vomits a bunch of code and then leaves the team to pick up your mess. Or someone who can't provide critical feedback without sabotaging the relationship. Either is a no go for a senior position.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > If you can't stick around two years anywhere I'm prone to thinking you're someone who vomits a bunch of code and then leaves the team to pick up your mess. Or someone who can't provide critical feedback without sabotaging the relationship. In another comment in this same thread you wrote: > people tend to leave if they aren't getting promotions, growing responsibilities, etc. So you already know that it's entirely possible that someone is doing great (doesn't vomit code that can't be maintained, doesn't ruin relationships) and still leaves a job after a year or two. So I don't get why you then assume the worst case when you see shorter tenures, that doesn't make sense to me.
  - tharkun__ 4y ago
    I think you're both correct so to speak :) If someone has 20 years of overall experience and only ever stayed at a company for one year, I will default to an orange flag and will have to ask lots of questions about that. If someone has 20 years of experience and has only ever worked at one company, I will default to an orange flag and will have to ask lots of questions about it. All of what you guys say can be true but doesn't have to be. The guy with only ~1 year tenures might have found awesome 20-50% salary increases by hopping around and made financially smart decisions to be able to have time work for him (compounding). He may also just be the dumb kid that's really not good at this and left a week before he would have been fired anyway each time. He switched to contracting at the end because "it raises less flags" The guy with 20 years at one company might have only gotten promoted because he's at a company where long tenure gets you promoted but doesn't know much. A perpetual junior with 20 years of "experience". Or he lucked into an awesome company with a good internal promotion culture and long tenures overall, which also results in less opportunities to get promoted (you need someone to move on/away so that a spot frees up so to speak), got promoted every 3-4 years and is now at the end of what he can get to at that company and made the decision to leave.

_qzu4 4y ago

The unfortunately thing is that most large companies are bad at retaining people. The quickest way to increase your compensation is to change jobs every 3-4 years. I think in 2022, it's much less taboo to move between companies.

only_throwing 4y ago

Thanks for your answer. Maybe many people are biased towards less risky professionals, which means having years of tenure at medium/large companies with a couple promotions sprinkled here and there. I don't think this is a good indicator, but I'm biased as well!

rco8786 4y ago

As a counterpoint, I sit on multiple hiring bars every week and have never once seen a candidate be rejected because of job hopping past. I always check, and I always bring it up, but it is a tertiary concern at best. Though I personally agree with your assessment.

dmlittle 4y ago
I was given the chance to vet my future manager once. I was presented with a candidate that had been in 11 different companies over the course of 8 years. We passed on them as soon as I pointed this out. Job hopping a few times is not a bad thing by itself but the reason why you’re doing so might be. In my case I didn’t want to hire a new manager only to repeat the process again in 6 months (their track record suggested they’d do it again). There’s also a _huge_ difference between having 8 years of experience and 8 first year experiences. As pointed out by GP the hard and complicated things/decisions come after a while in the job and you’ve onboarded and gotten context.
only_throwing 4y ago
Would you mind sharing if it's at startups, large companies with younger or older professionals?
- rco8786 4y ago
  Large co. Wide range of experience/age though worth noting that it’s ~85% IC roles rather than leadership.