5 ms·

I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business

I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck. If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list. If they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored and leaving. As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. If you (the candidate, in general) leave before then without extenuating circumstances I would probably skip over your resume the next time it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you were. Searching for candidates is an expensive, time-consuming process, I don't want to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill a position that I recently filled.

sanxiyn 14y ago
Thanks. An interesting perspective from a manager. I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? The phrase, "add insult to injury" comes to mind.
- maximilianburke 14y ago
  There are two reasons. The first is that presumably I passed on all the other candidates to go with my selection for a reason. Now that the best candidate for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit those who I passed over. The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles so the group is going to be a man down until a new person is hired.
OzzyB 14y ago
As someone who recruits for Electronic Arts who has far from a stellar record where the treatment and retention of staff is concerned; I would take this with a grain of salt.
- cgarvey 14y ago
  I agree. A small period of time with a great employee can completely change a company. I don't think past employment length is in any way an accurate indicator of the value an employee can bring. Unless your company objective is "hire someone who will sit in this chair for 4 years, guaranteed".
polymatter 14y ago
I understand you need to be picky as an employer, and I still can't comprehend the crap you as an employer receive when advertising jobs and I certainly don't envy you having to go through it. But I'm not sure you should assume a candidate who changed jobs every 1-2 years will continue doing so indefinately, especially if they have only had 2 or 3 jobs. Personal circumstances change and peoples appetite for risk generally decreases with age (and experience) especially once they pick up partners and children along their life journey. Intuitively it feels like a very bad metric for gauging if they are a longer term employee. If you have high staff turnover the larger factor may be an environment which drives them out. Though admitedly, if you have a say on hiring and don't have a say on the employees working environment then I guess you have few options.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  if you have a say on hiring and don't have a say on the employees working environment Anyone in that position should probably be the one looking for a new job.
mindcrime 14y ago
As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. So, wait... you're saying you want employees to commit to you for 2 years, no matter how bad the job turns out to be? Ok, so are you going to commit to the employee for a minimum of 2 years, no matter how bad the employee turns out to be? Or are you just trying to have your cake and eat it to? Employees don't exist to make your life easier, they're people, with their own dreams, hopes, goals and ambitions... why should they take one on the chin for you, if it might interfere with their pursuit of what matters to them?
- maximilianburke 14y ago
  Did you read the sentence after that? Hopes and dreams are great. If you leave because you're unhappy I'll wish you all the best. However if you find that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence and re-apply after being on the job for only 9 months in the first place, I'll probably pass on you as I'll still have it in my mind that you left your old team down a man with the same work to do. It's far from black and white. Context matters. If you're coming from another part of the company I'll check to see what projects you were on. I know a lot of good people that lost their jobs, and others who left, after they were on a string of unbelievably bad projects. But I knew the context of the work and the project they were on and ended up recently making one of the best hires my group has ever done with one of these guys. After that point? If you're unhappy with your work, or want to try something new, I'll help you find something better. I hired you because I thought you'd be a good fit for the company and ideally I'd like that relationship to continue. To that end I'll ask the all people I know to see what's open and hopefully find you something that's engaging.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Did you read the sentence after that? Hopes and dreams are great. If you leave because you're unhappy I'll wish you all the best. However if you find that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence and re-apply after being on the job for only 9 months in the first place, I'll probably pass on you as I'll still have it in my mind that you left your old team down a man with the same work to do. Sure, and the corollary is, if a firm lays somebody off after 6 months because their numbers for the quarter took a dip, the employee should pass on them if they come calling wanting them back. After that point? If you're unhappy with your work, or want to try something new, I'll help you find something better. I hired you because I thought you'd be a good fit for the company and ideally I'd like that relationship to continue. To that end I'll ask the all people I know to see what's open and hopefully find you something that's engaging. That's a good outlook to have. Glad to hear it. That earlier bit just came off a little bit as "The employee owes us something, but we don't owe them anything in turn." All I'm saying is that "fair is fair." My experience is that very few firms feel any sense of loyalty to their employees, but they want their employees to be loyal to them. That's what I have a problem with.

sanxiyn 14y ago

Thanks. An interesting perspective from a manager. I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.

sliverstorm 14y ago
But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? The phrase, "add insult to injury" comes to mind.
maximilianburke 14y ago
There are two reasons. The first is that presumably I passed on all the other candidates to go with my selection for a reason. Now that the best candidate for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit those who I passed over. The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles so the group is going to be a man down until a new person is hired.

OzzyB 14y ago

As someone who recruits for Electronic Arts who has far from a stellar record where the treatment and retention of staff is concerned; I would take this with a grain of salt.

cgarvey 14y ago
I agree. A small period of time with a great employee can completely change a company. I don't think past employment length is in any way an accurate indicator of the value an employee can bring. Unless your company objective is "hire someone who will sit in this chair for 4 years, guaranteed".

polymatter 14y ago

I understand you need to be picky as an employer, and I still can't comprehend the crap you as an employer receive when advertising jobs and I certainly don't envy you having to go through it. But I'm not sure you should assume a candidate who changed jobs every 1-2 years will continue doing so indefinately, especially if they have only had 2 or 3 jobs. Personal circumstances change and peoples appetite for risk generally decreases with age (and experience) especially once they pick up partners and children along their life journey. Intuitively it feels like a very bad metric for gauging if they are a longer term employee. If you have high staff turnover the larger factor may be an environment which drives them out. Though admitedly, if you have a say on hiring and don't have a say on the employees working environment then I guess you have few options.

mindcrime 14y ago
if you have a say on hiring and don't have a say on the employees working environment Anyone in that position should probably be the one looking for a new job.

mindcrime 14y ago

As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. So, wait... you're saying you want employees to commit to you for 2 years, no matter how bad the job turns out to be? Ok, so are you going to commit to the employee for a minimum of 2 years, no matter how bad the employee turns out to be? Or are you just trying to have your cake and eat it to? Employees don't exist to make your life easier, they're people, with their own dreams, hopes, goals and ambitions... why should they take one on the chin for you, if it might interfere with their pursuit of what matters to them?

maximilianburke 14y ago
Did you read the sentence after that? Hopes and dreams are great. If you leave because you're unhappy I'll wish you all the best. However if you find that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence and re-apply after being on the job for only 9 months in the first place, I'll probably pass on you as I'll still have it in my mind that you left your old team down a man with the same work to do. It's far from black and white. Context matters. If you're coming from another part of the company I'll check to see what projects you were on. I know a lot of good people that lost their jobs, and others who left, after they were on a string of unbelievably bad projects. But I knew the context of the work and the project they were on and ended up recently making one of the best hires my group has ever done with one of these guys. After that point? If you're unhappy with your work, or want to try something new, I'll help you find something better. I hired you because I thought you'd be a good fit for the company and ideally I'd like that relationship to continue. To that end I'll ask the all people I know to see what's open and hopefully find you something that's engaging.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Did you read the sentence after that? Hopes and dreams are great. If you leave because you're unhappy I'll wish you all the best. However if you find that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence and re-apply after being on the job for only 9 months in the first place, I'll probably pass on you as I'll still have it in my mind that you left your old team down a man with the same work to do. Sure, and the corollary is, if a firm lays somebody off after 6 months because their numbers for the quarter took a dip, the employee should pass on them if they come calling wanting them back. After that point? If you're unhappy with your work, or want to try something new, I'll help you find something better. I hired you because I thought you'd be a good fit for the company and ideally I'd like that relationship to continue. To that end I'll ask the all people I know to see what's open and hopefully find you something that's engaging. That's a good outlook to have. Glad to hear it. That earlier bit just came off a little bit as "The employee owes us something, but we don't owe them anything in turn." All I'm saying is that "fair is fair." My experience is that very few firms feel any sense of loyalty to their employees, but they want their employees to be loyal to them. That's what I have a problem with.