5 ms·

Why are you perpetuating the myth that frequent switching of jobs is somehow detrimental to your career? Maybe that's true for corporate megacorp, but in the st

by izolate 12y ago

Why are you perpetuating the myth that frequent switching of jobs is somehow detrimental to your career? Maybe that's true for corporate megacorp, but in the startup world I feel it's par for the course. At least all the best engineers I've worked with never stuck around long.

peteretep 12y ago
Depends what you mean by "long". I think people should move every two to three years. But you say "myth", and I can tell you categorically that CVs with lots of 6 to 18 month non-contract roles on them get rejected on that basis alone.
ryanackley 12y ago
As someone who has done a lot of interviewing and hiring, I can say that frequent switching of jobs is a negative and a red flag in general. If you had a business, would you want to hire someone who is probably going to jump to another job in a few months?
- bshimmin 12y ago
  For permanent employees, I would definitely agree - anyone who is unable or unwilling to stay in a permanent position for more than a year, say, probably isn't going to be a good bet in the long-run. For contractors, it's obviously somewhat different - but speaking from experience, many short contracts tend to get extended, so someone who has a raft of 1-2 month contracts and very few longer ones might be a bit of a risk. (Obviously some contracts are intentionally short - but I would definitely describe a very short contract on my CV as being more of a "project" than an actual contract.)
- FLUX-YOU 12y ago
  So what's the threshold for 'frequent'? Less than 1 year?
  - peteretep 12y ago
    Rule of thumb is two years. You're allowed to have one or two where you've left after three months - not every role works out. But more than anything: get comfortable talking about WHY it didn't work out, in a way that doesn't bad-mouth the company and still makes you look like a professional. An advantage of applying through a recruiter is that they can have this chat with you first, and then make your case to the employer (who they will have a relationship with). As a Hiring Manager, I've said no to candidates, only to have a recruiter persuade me (rightly) that actually I should talk to them, even though there were things that spooked me about their CV.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  If you hire me "at will" then I won't ever stop sending out resumes. I have had my job eliminated, regardless of my personal job performance, a grand total of four times. I have been forced out via office politics once, and voluntarily left a job once. If you had a family, would you want to work for someone who is probably going to sell or eliminate your job well before retirement? The loyalty from employers is gone. If you don't want me to leave in a few months, offer me an actual contract, and one that binds you to the relationship as firmly as it binds me.
outworlder 12y ago
It is not a myth. It WILL raise eyebrows, with HR mostly. A corollary of that is, if you don't actually have a HR department, there won't be any eyebrows to be raised. However, even if HR doesn't like it, if you do get an interview, then you can tell them a happy story to explain what happened. It helps if you can convince them that this time you'll stick around, provided the necessary conditions are met. Then ask several questions to clarify the points that are important to you.
kasey_junk 12y ago
As someone who has done a ton of hiring, switching jobs a lot is definitely a red flag. Not an automatic reject, but I frequently have to make choices like "It will take this person N months to become useful here, they switch jobs on average every M months. M-N seems like a pretty short time..."
- raverbashing 12y ago
  So, would you advise towards a competence based CV? In case a frequent switching happened, what would you like to see in a resume?
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    The things that would really make up for the switching would be either A) experience which is very close to what I am currently hiring for B) a reason for the frequent switching. At least for me, the CV is the least important part of the hiring pipeline. I have found them to have virtually zero correlation with good hires. So if I get a CV with frequent switching on it, and the candidate is great in all the other pipeline, it probably won't matter at all. If on the other hand, there are other questions about the candidate, a frequent switcher will get some questions about what they want in a job and a little bit of skepticism if we think there will be a big ramp up cost.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    > In case a frequent switching happened, what would you > like to see in a resume? It wouldn't be insane to put a leading paragraph explaining why you'd moved around so much.
Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
It's not a myth, at least not in most cases. If I take you on I want some indication that you're going to stay around long enough for the investment we're going to make in you to be worthwhile. We'll normally pay a recruitment fee and then we'll pay you while you're learning about our product, our industry, our processes and the specific technologies you haven't worked with that we use, and we'll be paying our existing staff to take time out from coding to do those things. That's not inconsiderable. Obviously your experience may render some of that irrelevant. If that's the case then if you're massively better than the other candidates I may take the risk but if you're not, then I can take you or I can take the person who is as good but will stick around longer. That's not a tough decision. I'm not looking for gold watch territory or even an indication that you might be around for 5 years, and I'm not looking for a guarantee, but if your CV shows a pattern of you moving every 15 months I need to work out why I think I won't be your next 15 month stint and if I think I think I am whether it'll be worth my while.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  Most people jump when the company is not paying market price so they switch. I move very fast from companies that don't keep up with pay. I stay at companies with regular pay rises. I've had both. So in my mind it means that companies concerned with job hopping, are really hoping to keep your pay down. It's an early warning .
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    I see where you're coming from but I disagree. I accept people leave when their salary diverges more than a certain amount from the market rate but that would normally - even in a good market - take time. Personally I wouldn't expect a major pay rise within the first 12 months of a job (if you do then you've probably not negotiated your starting salary properly). Add to that a couple of months after that to find another job and a month notice and the shortest stint relating to poor pay I'd expect is about 15 months. If you're staying 15 months or so in places which are bad payers and a few years in places which are good then your average is probably going to be 2-3 years. To me at least that's not a problematic amount of time (particularly not if you've shown you can stick at least place for 3 years or so because that says to me you're not inherently disloyal). So short stints don't say anything, at least not much, about money when I read a CV.

by izolate 12y ago

peteretep 12y ago

Depends what you mean by "long". I think people should move every two to three years. But you say "myth", and I can tell you categorically that CVs with lots of 6 to 18 month non-contract roles on them get rejected on that basis alone.

ryanackley 12y ago

As someone who has done a lot of interviewing and hiring, I can say that frequent switching of jobs is a negative and a red flag in general. If you had a business, would you want to hire someone who is probably going to jump to another job in a few months?

bshimmin 12y ago
For permanent employees, I would definitely agree - anyone who is unable or unwilling to stay in a permanent position for more than a year, say, probably isn't going to be a good bet in the long-run. For contractors, it's obviously somewhat different - but speaking from experience, many short contracts tend to get extended, so someone who has a raft of 1-2 month contracts and very few longer ones might be a bit of a risk. (Obviously some contracts are intentionally short - but I would definitely describe a very short contract on my CV as being more of a "project" than an actual contract.)
FLUX-YOU 12y ago
So what's the threshold for 'frequent'? Less than 1 year?
- peteretep 12y ago
  Rule of thumb is two years. You're allowed to have one or two where you've left after three months - not every role works out. But more than anything: get comfortable talking about WHY it didn't work out, in a way that doesn't bad-mouth the company and still makes you look like a professional. An advantage of applying through a recruiter is that they can have this chat with you first, and then make your case to the employer (who they will have a relationship with). As a Hiring Manager, I've said no to candidates, only to have a recruiter persuade me (rightly) that actually I should talk to them, even though there were things that spooked me about their CV.
logfromblammo 12y ago
If you hire me "at will" then I won't ever stop sending out resumes. I have had my job eliminated, regardless of my personal job performance, a grand total of four times. I have been forced out via office politics once, and voluntarily left a job once. If you had a family, would you want to work for someone who is probably going to sell or eliminate your job well before retirement? The loyalty from employers is gone. If you don't want me to leave in a few months, offer me an actual contract, and one that binds you to the relationship as firmly as it binds me.

outworlder 12y ago

It is not a myth. It WILL raise eyebrows, with HR mostly. A corollary of that is, if you don't actually have a HR department, there won't be any eyebrows to be raised. However, even if HR doesn't like it, if you do get an interview, then you can tell them a happy story to explain what happened. It helps if you can convince them that this time you'll stick around, provided the necessary conditions are met. Then ask several questions to clarify the points that are important to you.

kasey_junk 12y ago

As someone who has done a ton of hiring, switching jobs a lot is definitely a red flag. Not an automatic reject, but I frequently have to make choices like "It will take this person N months to become useful here, they switch jobs on average every M months. M-N seems like a pretty short time..."

raverbashing 12y ago
So, would you advise towards a competence based CV? In case a frequent switching happened, what would you like to see in a resume?
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  The things that would really make up for the switching would be either A) experience which is very close to what I am currently hiring for B) a reason for the frequent switching. At least for me, the CV is the least important part of the hiring pipeline. I have found them to have virtually zero correlation with good hires. So if I get a CV with frequent switching on it, and the candidate is great in all the other pipeline, it probably won't matter at all. If on the other hand, there are other questions about the candidate, a frequent switcher will get some questions about what they want in a job and a little bit of skepticism if we think there will be a big ramp up cost.
- peteretep 12y ago
  > In case a frequent switching happened, what would you > like to see in a resume? It wouldn't be insane to put a leading paragraph explaining why you'd moved around so much.

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago

It's not a myth, at least not in most cases. If I take you on I want some indication that you're going to stay around long enough for the investment we're going to make in you to be worthwhile. We'll normally pay a recruitment fee and then we'll pay you while you're learning about our product, our industry, our processes and the specific technologies you haven't worked with that we use, and we'll be paying our existing staff to take time out from coding to do those things. That's not inconsiderable. Obviously your experience may render some of that irrelevant. If that's the case then if you're massively better than the other candidates I may take the risk but if you're not, then I can take you or I can take the person who is as good but will stick around longer. That's not a tough decision. I'm not looking for gold watch territory or even an indication that you might be around for 5 years, and I'm not looking for a guarantee, but if your CV shows a pattern of you moving every 15 months I need to work out why I think I won't be your next 15 month stint and if I think I think I am whether it'll be worth my while.

UK-AL 12y ago
Most people jump when the company is not paying market price so they switch. I move very fast from companies that don't keep up with pay. I stay at companies with regular pay rises. I've had both. So in my mind it means that companies concerned with job hopping, are really hoping to keep your pay down. It's an early warning .
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  I see where you're coming from but I disagree. I accept people leave when their salary diverges more than a certain amount from the market rate but that would normally - even in a good market - take time. Personally I wouldn't expect a major pay rise within the first 12 months of a job (if you do then you've probably not negotiated your starting salary properly). Add to that a couple of months after that to find another job and a month notice and the shortest stint relating to poor pay I'd expect is about 15 months. If you're staying 15 months or so in places which are bad payers and a few years in places which are good then your average is probably going to be 2-3 years. To me at least that's not a problematic amount of time (particularly not if you've shown you can stick at least place for 3 years or so because that says to me you're not inherently disloyal). So short stints don't say anything, at least not much, about money when I read a CV.