Never Hire Job Hoppers. Never. They Make Terrible Employees

by Mark Suster on April 22, 2010

This is part of my startup advice series.  This post isn’t going to be popular.  I’m sure of that.  That’s OK.  It’s still important advice for startup founders and something that I’m passionate about.  And I care more about the debate than trying to be popular.  And it’s important because it’s true.

I never hire job hoppers.  Never.  They make terrible employees.  I can tell that the heat is going to fly from people on this post.  It all started yesterday when Jason Calacanis sent a Tweet telling GenY’ers / Millennials or whatever people under 30 want to be called these days that job hoppers look like “flakes.”  I simply sent a supporting Tweet saying that I agreed.  He specifically called them “trophy kids” a reference that this is the first generation in which everyone got a trophy as Bill Sledzik outlines in this posting, “Dear Millennials: Your Parents Lied to You.”  One simple Tweet and I started getting flack (Trev, if you’re a founder and have tried to build 3 companies you get a carve out) on Twitter (Sumit, your business school professor was wrong).

I’m not staying become a lifer.  If you want to understand my views from the employee’s point-of-view please read here.  James, 6 years is fine.  12 is getting long unless your company is totally rocking!

But this isn’t a post about Millennials – it’s about job hoppers of all ages and I know plenty of my fellow Gen X’ers who are running for the door at the first sign of trouble.  Look at some of the uber-successful icons of Silicon Valley / Technology: Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry/Sergey, Eric Schmidt, Andy Groves, John Doerr.  Not job hoppers.  I’m sure some job-hoppers have made it big (just to save your having to research to prove me wrong).

UPDATE:  Somehow the biggest criticism in the comments is that my arguments in this post are “lazy.”  I find this ironic since trying to apply a simple “label” to me rather than trying to debate the other side of my position is exactly that.  Hiring an employee has analogies to acquiring a customer.  It costs a lot to “acquire” so you want your LTV (lifetime value) to be as great as possibly given the upfront costs of acquisition.  If you have limited resources you want to put them against your potentially best long-term customers.  Hiring employees is no different.  Frankly, I’m astounded that this is so controversial.

People argue that somehow I need to hire this potentially great employee and give them a shot even though they’ve never committed to any job in their career.  Hogwash.  I’d rather more money and effort go up front to getting a larger potential employee pool than feeling forced to hire somebody who’s had 6 jobs in a row of 18 months or less.

As I’ve said now repeatedly in the comments – quitting 1-2 jobs early when you’re young is acceptable.  I get that when people are young they’re exploring life and work.  But 6 times is a pattern.  One person accuses me of “not trying to get to know the person but just judging them by their past.”  Um, yes.  Of course!  It’s like a woman who is dating a man who has had 6 wives and cheated on all of them before divorcing them but she somehow thinks SHE will be different.  Philanderers establish patterns that they don’t easily break.  Career job hoppers are no different.  They might perform well while they’re there but in the end they’re just not likely to stick around.  END UPDATE.

You won’t even get through my filter (unless I know you or you’re recommended).  No matter what your job hopping excuse isWhenever I recruit somebody on my own (e.g. without an agency) I take my big, fat pile of printed [yes, I print them] resumes and stack them on my desk.  In the last job I recruited for (our associate) I had more than 1,000 resumes.  I then really quickly race through looking for some minimum qualifications such as companies for which they worked, education, grades, etc.  With a stack of 1,000 resumes you have to filter.  Tools like Identified.com haven’t existed for me to do this in an automated way as they are starting to emerge.  Hopefully going forward we can all save trees.

This quickly gets me to a stack of 200 resumes.  The next quick thing I look for is how long people stayed at their jobs.  Here I can get rid of another 50-75 or so without even trying.  But even in a focused search through recruiters I’m always looking to eliminate the job hopper.  If I’m sent a stack of 10 resumes the first thing I look for is how long the person has been at their past 4-5 jobs.  If they’ve had 5 jobs of 2 years or less each – buh bye.  Yes, I will look to see whether you worked at some Dot Bombs that blew up and would give you a break for that.  But you know the routine.  And I’m not the only one who feels this way so you’re already at a disadvantage.

What is the definition of a job hopper?

It’s kind of like that famous saying about art, “you know it when you see it.”  If you’re 30 and have had 6 jobs since college you’re 98% likely to be a job hopper.  You’re probably disloyal.  You don’t have staying power.  You’re in it more for yourself than your company.  OR … you make bad decisions about which companies you join.  Yes, if you were a startup CEO I would probably cut you some slack.  Yes, 2% of you have legitimate reasons for having 5 jobs.  But in a competitive job market you’re less likely to get the chance to tell me your sob story.

Are you 25 and worked for 3 companies – each 18 months?  You’re on the borderline.  If they are Google, Facebook and then a startup – you’re fine.  That’s less than 1%.  If you’re 42 and the longest you’ve EVER worked at a company is 3  years – TOAST.  That means you’ve likely had 7 short-term jobs since college.

Why do job hoppers make such bad employees at startups? -

You’re a startup founder.  You have tough choices to make about whom you hire on your team.  You’re going to have some great days when you hit it out of the ballpark.  Everyone loves you.  Your older sister saw you on TechCrunch.  You have Google guys sending you CVs.  Then your competitor launches better shit.  Google offers your product for free.  You start fighting with your co-founder whom you thought you understood.  Your revenues are “just around the corner.”  Your angel investors are nervous because the VCs aren’t moving that fast to fund your next round.  Their not committing quickly to that bridge.

Now is the time that you need “all hands on deck.”  That awesome gal you hired in engineering has job options and she knows it.  Your biz dev guy has a Rolodex and friends bugging him to join their startup.  And he has already vested 75% of his stock options at your company.  Job hoppers are the first people to the door.  They’re self centered.  They don’t have a sense of loyalty to you despite the risks you took with them.  They don’t understand the word commitment.  Believe me – you WILL have dark days.  And you will only have a handful of people you trust.  That person you’re thinking about hiring who’s 30 and had 5-6 jobs ins’t one of them about right now.

And as you know it is completely all consuming to find great new employees.  It is soul destroying to have to train “yet another head of QA.”  It is bad on team morale when good people quit.  The people who stay are often with you.  But sometimes it weakens their own resolve.  Especially when this job hopper has them out for drinks to talk about his cool new gig where the grass is currently greener.

And good VC’s feel the same way.  When my company hit the fan in 2001 I could have easily walked and gotten a better paying job.  Anyone around then knows that B2B stood for “back-to-banking” and B2C stood for “back-to-consulting.”  I took people’s money.  It was my job to stay and try and make things better.  When I’m looking to fund somebody I care about that loyalty and integrity.  I can never know for sure but as I’ve written about before I’m certainly looking for resiliency.

Why are independent consultants just as bad? -

I also avoid hiring people who have been independent consultants for the past 5 years “advising” companies on the sideline.  I know, I know.  I just added a whole new slew of people to hate me, but while they might make good consultants or even full-time contractors, they seldom make great permanent employees.  They’ve already voted with their careers that they’re not “company people.”  Yes, they too have their excuses.  ”It was a tough economy.  I had to do what I could to earn money.”  Cough.  If you want to hire them as contractors fine. They’re not bad people.  Just don’t give up one of your valuable full-time management positions.

Why?  Their fallback is too easy.  1) they know they can earn more money as a contractor and 2) they’re already not worried about what being a long-term contractor looks like on their career trajectory.  By definition!

Why are so many people angry when you speak the truth on this topic? -

Simply because the last 20 years has produced two generations of job hoppers.  It started with GenXer’s.  Many of us cut our teeth at work in the early 90′s.  We came off many generations of people who stayed their whole careers at IBM, DEC or XEROX.  We all lost our jobs through downsizing in the early 90′s and we felt scarred.  We realized that there was no such thing as “corporate loyalty.”

So you combine my generation of cynics with the GenY generation of  ”entitlement” (until 2008 – you only saw BOOM years other than a short dot-com blip).  And you saw a crazy amount of 20-somethings become millionaires and you confused that with yourself.  If you are a job hopper or semi-permanent contractor you’re angry with me – but regardless – I speak the truth.

What can you do if you think you have too many transitions in your career? -

All is not lost.  Renounce your past sins.  Grab a seat at your current employer and prove you can stay committed.  Or if you need that next job here is some advice:

  • Try to merge jobs on your resume.  I’m not talking about lying.  Not at all.  But if your company was acquired after you were there for 15 months just merge it with the acquiring company.
  • If you worked somewhere for 6 months leave it out.  It’s not worth it.  Listing it is a negative and unless it was interning for Ted Kennedy  or Ronald Reagan it’s most likely a liability.  A resume does not require you to list absolutely everything you’ve ever done.  Do not lie.  If asked in an interview about the gap you can simple say, “I joined a company for 6 months that was a total mistake.  I regretted it.  I figured I didn’t accomplish enough to put it on my resume.  Trying to make what I did there sound good on a resume would have been false.
  • If a company went bankrupt – put that in big words right after the company and title
  • If you’re in a job interview own up to your mistakes.  Come right out with, “yeah, I probably rushed into those two jobs because I was young.  I now realize the importance of picking the right company and I’m looking for somewhere I can build my career.”
  • If you get to the interview deal with the Elephants in the Room.  Talk about your mistakes and emphasize why in your future you’re going to be so focused on longevity.

Or take this advice from Todd Defren at SHIFT communications

“My advice then — and you may see it as biased — is to stay put for a while.  I am talking 3 – 5 years, at least.  There is no such thing as a perfect fit.  You must create the perfect fit.  This is your apprenticeship period.  It is supposed to suck.  There are supposed to be crummy days when you feel under-appreciated.  Such days will occur no matter who signs your paycheck.

But there are rewards for loyalty, I promise.  When I look around the table of my senior staff meetings at SHIFT, for example, most of the people at the meeting have been with the Agency for 5 – 10 years.  Some of them started out as interns, and now they run million-dollar teams.  All of ‘em are under 40 (i.e., it doesn’t take forever).”

What are some key things to avoid saying in an interview? -

1. “I was recruited away from that job.  The new company was willing to pay me more money / give me a title increase” – what I hear, “Three times?  You were recruited away three times?  You aren’t loyal.  The first company that offers you a higher check means you going to jump ship.  You’re only about the money and yourself.”  Believe me – people WILL offer you employees more money.  Job hoppers take it.

2. “I was working for a lame boss.  I had to get out of there.”  What I hear, “You’re difficult to work with.  You don’t have gravitas.  Anybody with any common sense would know not to talk badly about a prior boss.  What will you say about me after you’ve left?  What will you say about me to your peers in my company when I make difficult decisions?”

3. “My stock was already vested so it was time to move on.”  What I hear – “You’re in it for the money.  The day the carrot is gone so, too, are you.”  I’d rather fire you before I hire you.

OK.  Bring me the heat.  I can take it.  Especially since I’m right on this one ;-)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • HackerNews
  • email
  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Fair point. I was just saying that in my view most potential employers would see those brands and want to interview you no matter what. That's all.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    OK, Nathanael, fair points. I probably was a bit excessive. I appreciate your taking the time to offer your point of view.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    OK, Nathanael, fair points. I probably was a bit excessive. I appreciate your taking the time to offer your point of view.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    “this author” stayed in his first job (it was a big company) 8+ years, his second job 6+ years, third 2 years and I've been at my current job 2.5 years.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    “this author” stayed in his first job (it was a big company) 8+ years, his second job 6+ years, third 2 years and I've been at my current job 2.5 years.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    So true, Adam. It's a shame people don't realize how much you learn in the lean years.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    So true, Adam. It's a shame people don't realize how much you learn in the lean years.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Great points, thank you. re: short stings at startups – always case specific. But probably not a major negative.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Great points, thank you. re: short stings at startups – always case specific. But probably not a major negative.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Sally,

    You are WAY off base. My wife used to work at Google. She wanted to work even after we had kids but she struggled to balance work / personal life. So when I had a role open for a marketing position I thought I'd try and help another smart mother by creating the kind of employment where somebody similar to my wife could have a meaningful job while still being home part time (at her choice!). I was SWAMPED with resumes so I'm guessing that there is demand for this type of job for working mom's.

    I'm sure Jacqui Jacobs, who now runs marketing for us 3 days / week would take issue with your characterization of me. I'd be interested to understand how you see this as sexist? I saw it as progressive.

    Mark

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Sally,

    You are WAY off base. My wife used to work at Google. She wanted to work even after we had kids but she struggled to balance work / personal life. So when I had a role open for a marketing position I thought I'd try and help another smart mother by creating the kind of employment where somebody similar to my wife could have a meaningful job while still being home part time (at her choice!). I was SWAMPED with resumes so I'm guessing that there is demand for this type of job for working mom's.

    I'm sure Jacqui Jacobs, who now runs marketing for us 3 days / week would take issue with your characterization of me. I'd be interested to understand how you see this as sexist? I saw it as progressive.

    Mark

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Jared, I can understand why you've chosen the past you've chosen. I don't have any beef with it. I'm guessing you prefer not to go permanent any longer and that's totally fine. I don't have any problem with independent consultants at all. But seeing how much you can make doing that it's unlikely you'll want to work for a startup company permanently again. So startups might be best to engage you the way that you want to be engaged – as a temporary consultant.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Jared, I can understand why you've chosen the past you've chosen. I don't have any beef with it. I'm guessing you prefer not to go permanent any longer and that's totally fine. I don't have any problem with independent consultants at all. But seeing how much you can make doing that it's unlikely you'll want to work for a startup company permanently again. So startups might be best to engage you the way that you want to be engaged – as a temporary consultant.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I don't have any problem with you, Kim. If you've been laid off twice, just make sure to put that on your resume so people like me will understand why you left. And if any of them were super short leave them off.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I don't have any problem with you, Kim. If you've been laid off twice, just make sure to put that on your resume so people like me will understand why you left. And if any of them were super short leave them off.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Wow. What deep insight.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Wow. What deep insight.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I never defended big company CEO's that worked off with huge amounts of corporate dollars. Never.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I never defended big company CEO's that worked off with huge amounts of corporate dollars. Never.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    That's great, Michael. I have no problem with that. But you've said it yourself, “it's impossible to please me at any job for long period of time” which is what a hiring manager needs to know. Maybe you're best employed as an independent contractor?

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    That's great, Michael. I have no problem with that. But you've said it yourself, “it's impossible to please me at any job for long period of time” which is what a hiring manager needs to know. Maybe you're best employed as an independent contractor?

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I'm with ya, Kevin. No reason to stay at MegaCorp. Just find somewhere that you can stay and enjoy work for 3 years to prove that you can be committed somewhere. And it so happens that the longer you stick around often the more you actually learn. Yes, there are a lot of bad CEO's out there. For sure.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I'm with ya, Kevin. No reason to stay at MegaCorp. Just find somewhere that you can stay and enjoy work for 3 years to prove that you can be committed somewhere. And it so happens that the longer you stick around often the more you actually learn. Yes, there are a lot of bad CEO's out there. For sure.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Thank you.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    Thank you.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I don't take any issue with anything you've said. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussion.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    I don't take any issue with anything you've said. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussion.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    It's true that people are sometimes fired to improve the bottom line. It's also true that some people quit early out of self interest. Both sometimes make sense. But if you're a CEO who always churns through employees few people will want to work for you. If you're an employee who always quits early not great company will want to hire you. It's reciprocal.

  • http://bothsidesofthetable.com msuster

    It's true that people are sometimes fired to improve the bottom line. It's also true that some people quit early out of self interest. Both sometimes make sense. But if you're a CEO who always churns through employees few people will want to work for you. If you're an employee who always quits early not great company will want to hire you. It's reciprocal.

  • Marcus

    Analogues, just as right, mostly wrong:

    “Never join a startup. Never. They make terrible employers.” (i.e. god complexes, lies, broken promises, dumb ideas, untested leadership)

    “Never join a publicly traded company. Never. They make terrible employers.” (i.e. quarterly earnings statement syndrome, god complexes, layoffs, corporate culture, brain-dead middle management, political infighting)

  • Marcus

    Analogues, just as right, mostly wrong:

    “Never join a startup. Never. They make terrible employers.” (i.e. god complexes, lies, broken promises, dumb ideas, untested leadership)

    “Never join a publicly traded company. Never. They make terrible employers.” (i.e. quarterly earnings statement syndrome, god complexes, layoffs, corporate culture, brain-dead middle management, political infighting)

  • http://dupa.com dupa

    Job hoppers hop when the company starts getting crap. If you run a good company and everybody gets the proper wages for the post, no one hops. People hop when they sense that they entered the company based on promises and then the line manager says something completely different from what was discussed at the job interview.

  • http://dupa.com dupa

    Job hoppers hop when the company starts getting crap. If you run a good company and everybody gets the proper wages for the post, no one hops. People hop when they sense that they entered the company based on promises and then the line manager says something completely different from what was discussed at the job interview.

  • inboulder

    I think you're right, I have another equally good rule: “Never Work With A Former Accenture Employee. Never. “

  • http://www.twitter.com/michaeljung Michael Jung

    Finally a post I can comment on, bc of my experience.

    Mark, totally agree with your job hopper thesis;
    - depending on the company size, market, industry – hiring process costs $2k and upwards. As far as I remember (2005/6), the number in UK for some average technical person IBM hired (not lots of team lead or managerial or project experience), was in the ballpark of £25k. An the hire didn't even work 1 day. Guess now what it costs Apple, Google, MSFT, … for them you are a blip on the cost center side but because they have their cost centers, they easily can see what their hiring costs are for one person/average/from quarter to quarter.

    For startups with seedmoney ($100k-500k) or an A round of 1-5 million – every effing 1 large counts, is visible.

    Do you spend the money on yet-another-hire-bc-somebody-left-for-greener-fields, or do you spend the money on ad campaigns, customer development, or an part-time assistant so you can concentrate on your product development.

    Then, it hurts the team, individuals, the moral of the crew, it takes air out of the marathon runner – the startup. You are hurting the startup in so many levels you can't imagine.

    That is why @Jason is so … 'Jason'. Because he knows that this behaviour (job hopping) has transmission effects, endangering the whole company, his vision, mission, product, … never reaching the finish line. Because the marathon runner is out of air.

    That's just my take on it. Next to the 300 other comments.

  • http://www.twitter.com/michaeljung Michael Jung

    Finally a post I can comment on, bc of my experience.

    Mark, totally agree with your job hopper thesis;
    - depending on the company size, market, industry – hiring process costs $2k and upwards. As far as I remember (2005/6), the number in UK for some average technical person IBM hired (not lots of team lead or managerial or project experience), was in the ballpark of £25k. An the hire didn't even work 1 day. Guess now what it costs Apple, Google, MSFT, … for them you are a blip on the cost center side but because they have their cost centers, they easily can see what their hiring costs are for one person/average/from quarter to quarter.

    For startups with seedmoney ($100k-500k) or an A round of 1-5 million – every effing 1 large counts, is visible.

    Do you spend the money on yet-another-hire-bc-somebody-left-for-greener-fields, or do you spend the money on ad campaigns, customer development, or an part-time assistant so you can concentrate on your product development.

    Then, it hurts the team, individuals, the moral of the crew, it takes air out of the marathon runner – the startup. You are hurting the startup in so many levels you can't imagine.

    That is why @Jason is so … 'Jason'. Because he knows that this behaviour (job hopping) has transmission effects, endangering the whole company, his vision, mission, product, … never reaching the finish line. Because the marathon runner is out of air.

    That's just my take on it. Next to the 300 other comments.

  • Peter

    “I then really quickly race through looking for some minimum qualifications such as companies for which they worked, education, grades, etc.”

    You look at education and grades????

    I stop reading your garbage right there.

    WHAT AN ASSHOLE!

    How could grades be possible relevant?

    Grow up!

  • workin

    you might not hire him but there are plenty of other companies that will. you could make your same argument to companies, telling them they need to “show some damn loyalty” and not lay people off at the end of the quarter to satisfy wall street or because things are tough. people aren't stupid and know there is no loyalty in any company these days. the company doesn't want to take unnecessary risks on drifters, sure, but we all know the company will lay off the most loyal of employees in a heartbeat. am i wrong?

  • Anonymous

    Yes. You cannot make assumptions though. Otherwise you’re stereotyping. You’ve got to get the facts. The only way to do that is to talk to the person.

    This might help.

    “Stereotypes can be either positive or negative, but they are all unfair and misleading. In general, stereotypes reduce individuals to a rigid, inflexible image; they do not account for the fact that human beings are complex and multidimensional, with unique attributes. Stereotypes suggest that people or groups of people are the same, when, in fact, they are quite different. Stereotypes about human beings tend to dehumanize people, placing all members of a group into one, simple category.”

  • Guest

    So you’re suggesting one interviews everyone who submits a resume to
    make sure they don’t misjudge someone? Thanks for the urban dictionary
    quote but you’re living in a hippy dream world. My guess is you’ve
    never hired anyone before.

  • Anonymous

    You are wrong. I have interviewed, hired and fired employees.

    And I do love this Hippie world. Peace be with you and best of luck in your ventures.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmansfield Jim in Colorado

    All I can say is that every time we have had a disastrous experience with an employee it has been someone with a shaky job history and often we talked ourselves out of questioning the 3-4 jobs in the last 3 years because we needed / liked the skillset so much. Tech people leaving 6 months into a job? “Sorry this job offers better commute or lets me do more of what I want to do.” WTF, you have no future if you are thinking like that IMO. In a complicated business we have often spent tens of thousands just getting someone up to speed and then they leave or flake. ugh.

    On the other hand when you find someone that was a company through a growth period for 4-5 years and progressed in responsibility and is leaving because the company flamed out or some other reasonable scenario like a merger, hire them right away. They are all most always amazing.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmansfield Jim in Colorado

    All I can say is that every time we have had a disastrous experience with an employee it has been someone with a shaky job history and often we talked ourselves out of questioning the 3-4 jobs in the last 3 years because we needed / liked the skillset so much. Tech people leaving 6 months into a job? “Sorry this job offers better commute or lets me do more of what I want to do.” WTF, you have no future if you are thinking like that IMO. In a complicated business we have often spent tens of thousands just getting someone up to speed and then they leave or flake. ugh.

    On the other hand when you find someone that was a company through a growth period for 4-5 years and progressed in responsibility and is leaving because the company flamed out or some other reasonable scenario like a merger, hire them right away. They are all most always amazing.

  • pradipbepari

    I couldn't agree with you more. The story is even bleak in startups in India.

    Being in the management position of a successful startup (VP Engg, and GM, PicoMobile Networks) and part of a failed on (Ionic Microsystems), I have realised the biggest headache for a management team is the job hoppers.

    They are impatient, manipulative, self centered and always in the lookout for personal gain. When things are hunky dory, job hoppers are the first to demand great incentive and when it is bad, they are the first set of people to leave. When they leave you have a high risk of losing other talented employees of your company. I do not want to generalize; but my experience has been these individuals are only passionate about their own personaly growth even if it is in the expense of someone else or the very foundation of the company.

    My recommendation that you should never hire job-hoppers for critical postions and definitely not the first 6-8 core employees. Even if you have compromised and hired a full-time employee of this category, keep looking out for possible replacement.

    Pradip Bepari

  • pradipbepari

    I couldn't agree with you more. The story is even bleak in startups in India.

    Being in the management position of a successful startup (VP Engg, and GM, PicoMobile Networks) and part of a failed on (Ionic Microsystems), I have realised the biggest headache for a management team is the job hoppers.

    They are impatient, manipulative, self centered and always in the lookout for personal gain. When things are hunky dory, job hoppers are the first to demand great incentive and when it is bad, they are the first set of people to leave. When they leave you have a high risk of losing other talented employees of your company. I do not want to generalize; but my experience has been these individuals are only passionate about their own personaly growth even if it is in the expense of someone else or the very foundation of the company.

    My recommendation that you should never hire job-hoppers for critical postions and definitely not the first 6-8 core employees. Even if you have compromised and hired a full-time employee of this category, keep looking out for possible replacement.

    Pradip Bepari

  • graduatingsenior

    What about Penelope Trunk's arguments at http://blogs.bnet.com/career-advice/?p=811 ?

    People in their 20s on average change jobs every 18 months. People in their 30s — at least the ones that continue to do well in their careers — change jobs frequently as well, although at a slower pace than the 20 somethings. So if you think job-hopping is bad, change your thinking. Job hoppers are not quitters. In fact, they make better co-workers and better employees and I bet are generally more satisfied with their work life.

    Here’s why:

    1. Job hoppers have more intellectually rewarding careers.

    In almost any job, the learning curve is very steep early on. And then it goes flat. So by the end of two years at the same job, you often have little left to learn. Which makes me wonder what people are doing to keep their brains alive if they stay at the same job for 20 years. It also makes me certain that job hoppers know more.

    If you change jobs often, then you’re always challenged with a lot to learn — your learning curve stays high. This is true for office skills, and industry specific knowledge. It also applies to your emotional intelligence. The more you have to navigate corporate hierarchies and deal with office dramas, the more you learn about people and the better you will become at making people comfortable at work. And that’s a great skill to have.

    2. Job hoppers have more stable careers.

    Corporate America doesn’t provide stability for its employees. The only people who think it does are really old and completely out of touch. There are layoffs and downsizing and just-in-time hiring and contract workers — realities that barely existed a generation ago. The stability you get in your career comes from you. If you’re counting on some company to give you stability, realizing this is scary. But if you believe in yourself and your abilities and treat your career with this understanding, then it’s no problem. You can create career stability — you just have to do it on your own.

    The way you do that is through networking. Because you can be sure you’ll need to find many jobs in your lifetime, you want network as efficiently as you can. After all, the most efficient way to find a job is through a network. It’s how most people land jobs. People who work for lots of companies have a larger network than people who stay in one place for long periods of time. Which is why job-hopping creates stability.

    3. Job hoppers are higher performers.

    If you know you are going to leave your job in the next year, you’re going to be very conscious of your resume — that is, what skills you’re tackling, what you’re achieving, whether you’re becoming an expert in your field. These issues do not generally concern someone who has been in a job for five years and knows he’s going to stay another five years. So job hoppers are always looking to do really well at work, if for no other reason than it helps them get their next job.

    You can’t job hop if don’t add value each place you go. That’s why job hoppers are usually overachievers on projects they are involved in; they want something good to put on their resume. So from employers’ perspective, this is a good thing. Companies benefit more from having a strong performer for 18 months than a mediocre employee for 20 years. (And don’t tell me people can’t get up to speed fast enough to contribute. Fix that. It’s an outdated model and won’t attract good employees.)

    4. Job hoppers are more loyal.

    Loyalty is caring about the people you’re with, right? Job hoppers are generally great team players because that’s all they have. Job hoppers don’t identify with a company’s long-term performance, they identify with their work group’s short-term performance. Job hoppers want their boss to adore them so they get a good reference. Job hoppers want to bond with their co-workers so they can all help each other get jobs later on. And job hoppers want to make sure everyone who comes into contact with them has a good experience with them; it’s not like they have ten years on the job to fix a first impression.

    This is why job hoppers care more about their co-workers and will go further to make them happy than long-term employees. And it if you think about it, this makes sense for a company, too: The company isn’t hiring you with any decade-long commitment, so you would be foolish to think you have to give one.

    5. Job hoppers are more emotionally mature.

    It takes a good deal of self-knowledge to know what you want to do next, and to choose to go get it rather than stay someplace that for the moment seems safe. It takes commitment to personal growth to give up career complacency and embrace a challenging learning curve throughout your career — over and over. And it’s a brave person who can tell someone, “I know I’ve only been working here for a month, but it’s not right for me, so I’m leaving.”

    Doubtless you’ll hear that you should stick it out, show some loyalty, give it at least a year or two. But why should you take time out of your life to spend your days doing something you know is not right for you?

    It is okay to quit. No career is interesting if it’s not engaging and challenging, and your most important job is to find that — over and over. Do not settle for outdated workplace models that accept complacency and downplay self-knowledge. Sure, the job market is tough nowadays – but that’s no reason to settle.

  • graduatingsenior

    What about Penelope Trunk's arguments at http://blogs.bnet.com/career-advice/?p=811 ?

    People in their 20s on average change jobs every 18 months. People in their 30s — at least the ones that continue to do well in their careers — change jobs frequently as well, although at a slower pace than the 20 somethings. So if you think job-hopping is bad, change your thinking. Job hoppers are not quitters. In fact, they make better co-workers and better employees and I bet are generally more satisfied with their work life.

    Here’s why:

    1. Job hoppers have more intellectually rewarding careers.

    In almost any job, the learning curve is very steep early on. And then it goes flat. So by the end of two years at the same job, you often have little left to learn. Which makes me wonder what people are doing to keep their brains alive if they stay at the same job for 20 years. It also makes me certain that job hoppers know more.

    If you change jobs often, then you’re always challenged with a lot to learn — your learning curve stays high. This is true for office skills, and industry specific knowledge. It also applies to your emotional intelligence. The more you have to navigate corporate hierarchies and deal with office dramas, the more you learn about people and the better you will become at making people comfortable at work. And that’s a great skill to have.

    2. Job hoppers have more stable careers.

    Corporate America doesn’t provide stability for its employees. The only people who think it does are really old and completely out of touch. There are layoffs and downsizing and just-in-time hiring and contract workers — realities that barely existed a generation ago. The stability you get in your career comes from you. If you’re counting on some company to give you stability, realizing this is scary. But if you believe in yourself and your abilities and treat your career with this understanding, then it’s no problem. You can create career stability — you just have to do it on your own.

    The way you do that is through networking. Because you can be sure you’ll need to find many jobs in your lifetime, you want network as efficiently as you can. After all, the most efficient way to find a job is through a network. It’s how most people land jobs. People who work for lots of companies have a larger network than people who stay in one place for long periods of time. Which is why job-hopping creates stability.

    3. Job hoppers are higher performers.

    If you know you are going to leave your job in the next year, you’re going to be very conscious of your resume — that is, what skills you’re tackling, what you’re achieving, whether you’re becoming an expert in your field. These issues do not generally concern someone who has been in a job for five years and knows he’s going to stay another five years. So job hoppers are always looking to do really well at work, if for no other reason than it helps them get their next job.

    You can’t job hop if don’t add value each place you go. That’s why job hoppers are usually overachievers on projects they are involved in; they want something good to put on their resume. So from employers’ perspective, this is a good thing. Companies benefit more from having a strong performer for 18 months than a mediocre employee for 20 years. (And don’t tell me people can’t get up to speed fast enough to contribute. Fix that. It’s an outdated model and won’t attract good employees.)

    4. Job hoppers are more loyal.

    Loyalty is caring about the people you’re with, right? Job hoppers are generally great team players because that’s all they have. Job hoppers don’t identify with a company’s long-term performance, they identify with their work group’s short-term performance. Job hoppers want their boss to adore them so they get a good reference. Job hoppers want to bond with their co-workers so they can all help each other get jobs later on. And job hoppers want to make sure everyone who comes into contact with them has a good experience with them; it’s not like they have ten years on the job to fix a first impression.

    This is why job hoppers care more about their co-workers and will go further to make them happy than long-term employees. And it if you think about it, this makes sense for a company, too: The company isn’t hiring you with any decade-long commitment, so you would be foolish to think you have to give one.

    5. Job hoppers are more emotionally mature.

    It takes a good deal of self-knowledge to know what you want to do next, and to choose to go get it rather than stay someplace that for the moment seems safe. It takes commitment to personal growth to give up career complacency and embrace a challenging learning curve throughout your career — over and over. And it’s a brave person who can tell someone, “I know I’ve only been working here for a month, but it’s not right for me, so I’m leaving.”

    Doubtless you’ll hear that you should stick it out, show some loyalty, give it at least a year or two. But why should you take time out of your life to spend your days doing something you know is not right for you?

    It is okay to quit. No career is interesting if it’s not engaging and challenging, and your most important job is to find that — over and over. Do not settle for outdated workplace models that accept complacency and downplay self-knowledge. Sure, the job market is tough nowadays – but that’s no reason to settle.

  • scottuhrig

    3 points. First – I'm a headhunter for tech startups. You perspective on job hoppers is a no brainer. Nothing more to say about that. Second – the opposite is also true. If you are a candidate contemplating a VP Sales opportunity, and you would be the 4th VP Sales in 5 years, do NOT take the job. Something is wrong with the company, hiring manager, role, etc. Third – the idea of sifting through 1000 resumes makes me cringe. Next time you have a position to fill, ask yourself the question – if I could hire anyone for this role, who would it be? Pose the question to your colleagues, to your network – and create a list of 15 – 20 people that, if you could get them interested, would likely be great candidates. Then figure out a way to attract them.

  • scottuhrig

    3 points. First – I'm a headhunter for tech startups. You perspective on job hoppers is a no brainer. Nothing more to say about that. Second – the opposite is also true. If you are a candidate contemplating a VP Sales opportunity, and you would be the 4th VP Sales in 5 years, do NOT take the job. Something is wrong with the company, hiring manager, role, etc. Third – the idea of sifting through 1000 resumes makes me cringe. Next time you have a position to fill, ask yourself the question – if I could hire anyone for this role, who would it be? Pose the question to your colleagues, to your network – and create a list of 15 – 20 people that, if you could get them interested, would likely be great candidates. Then figure out a way to attract them.

  • Thomas

    The lesson should probably be to vet your employers carefully if you follow the long-term approach. You then only have 4-6 stints in your entire working life, or perhaps less as a techie where your intellectual capital erodes very quickly.

    Does the company or department have a strong track record of profitability for at least a few years? Will it be making any big, risky bets in the next five years? How many people have quit or been laid off or shuffled in or out in the last three to five years? Is the career track for an employee similar to yourself suitable or will you be forced to move on in order to avoid stagnation? (Stagnation is another black mark on your CV.) Are the current executives responsible for the decisions so far or are they new on the job? Are the executives trustworthy and in for a sufficiently long haul? In short, assuming your own performance, do you actually have a 95%+ shot at serving, say, at least a five year stint with a satisfactory trajectory or outcome?

    If not, leave it to the job hoppers. The best-outcome approach is probably to stay out of startups unless you’re looking at a sure thing: a rocket like Google or Facebook after 100+ employees, say. Think like Deer Hunter. Until then: assuming you’re a techie, focus on a high-value engineering job at some tech giant. (Or perhaps the financial sector?)

Previous post:

Next post: