Job Hoppers Redux: An Employee’s Perspective

by Mark Suster on April 25, 2010

On Thursday of last week I cranked out a post on job hoppers.  To say that it was controversial is an understatement.  I intended for it to be provocative but not inflammatory.

So let me start with an apology.  Not for my point-of-view (which I stand by and accept that not everybody feels the same way) but rather for making some of the language more inflammatory than it needed to be.  What happens when I write blog posts is that I type really quickly what is in my brain and hit send with very little revision.  By the next day I usually try to clean up some of the typos but usually try to leave the content intact.  I do this because if I had to edit everything perfectly I’d produce about 50% of the posts that I do.  I have re-read the job-hopping  post many times now and see how I could have chosen more sensitive ways of conveying my thoughts.  If I offended you, I’m sorry.

Now, onto this post.  One of the common themes in the comments was, “you’ve written this post mostly from the employer’s perspective.”  Yeah, I guess I thought that was sort of implicit in the title of the post, “Never Hire Job Hoppers.”  So let me start today from the perspective of the employee.

Should you be loyal to a company that treats you poorly?

No.  I never said that in my original post and I don’t believe it.  One of the things that commenters on my original post were so passionate about was how screwed they felt by so many of the companies that had hired them.  They felt misled.  They felt that management didn’t share information such as how much cash was left in the company.  Many were laid off as companies cut back expenses.  These people were mad.  And this is understandable to me.

Listen, my post never defended bad employers.  I never said that management was always great and junior employees who quit are evil.  My point was that people who quit many jobs (I had settled on an arbitrary number of 6 jobs by the time you’re 30) were not likely to stay at your job if you hire them and you’re therefore better off to find people with more staying power.  In defending myself in the comments section I started to settle on a slightly revised POV.  I’m OK with some amount of job turnover early in one’s career provided that the employee has shown that they do have “staying power” at at least one recent job.  I define staying power as having stayed at a job for 3 years or more.

But to be clear.  If you’re somewhere that you believe is fundamentally treating you badly and you don’t see a way to change that situation (e.g. transferring to a different group with a new boss or talking about the issue with senior person at your company who may be able to help) then by all means move on.

I will contend that my point in the originial post stands.  If you’ve done this 6 times in a short period of time then one should conclude that either a) it might actually be you rather than bad employers or b) you don’t do enough due diligence before joining companies.  It’s just hard for me to accept “6 times unlucky.”

What if I decide I want to change industries, locations or job functions?  What if I was laid off 2-3 times?

Again, this is totally fine.  I recommend to people that you put on your resume the reason that you changed jobs.  If you quit a job because you moved from NY to San Fran why not just say this on your resume.  It would say, “reason for leaving: moved from NY to SF.”  Or if your company shut down or downsized: “reason for leaving: company went bankrupt, company laid off 50% of employees, etc.”

In my post I wrote that I “filter” for job hoppers.  I can’t deny that.  If I’m looking at a stack of resumes and have to quickly whittle them down I usually eliminate resumes where people switched too many times and didn’t have a single place that they stayed for 3+ years.  Again, I am not talking about young people 25-27, I’m talking about 30+ year olds.  I believe that many hiring managers filter this way.  And if I’m right then it’s at least worth your knowing how hiring managers feel and find a way to deal with that.  Later in the post I will talk about how to avoid being filtered out if this description matches you.

Are there any exceptions to your job hopping rule?

Of course there are.  I’ve already covered some such as changing geographies, going through layoffs, changing career direction, etc.  There are some other not so obvious reasons such as changes in marital status or changing so that people can deal with family members that are sick.  I’ve seen all scenarios.  The point of a resume is to get an interview and have the chance to explain circumstances face-to-face.

Is it a problem if you moved jobs a few times when you were young?

No.  I know I’m getting redundant but I want to make this very clear.  I understand that when people are young they don’t often know what the right role, company or geography will suit them.  If you changed a few times when you were (are) young that’s fine.  If you’re 24 and have had 3 jobs it might be a bit more difficult for you to explain than somebody who is 27 and has had three jobs.

What if I DID have too many jobs?  What can I do about it now?

I talked about some strategies in the first post.

1. If you were at a job less than 1 year and this happened several times consider leaving a few off your resume.  Better to show gaps than high churn.  I’m not advocating lying.  A resume is where you list your most important achievements not everything you’ve ever done.

2. If your company was acquired list your whole employment under the buyer’s company name (e.g. don’t show as 2 employers).  Someone reading your resume might not make the link in a 20 second glance.  Or use a combo in the company description such as “AOL / Netscape”

3. If you had multiple jobs that you have legitimate reasons for leaving put them in your resume under “reason for leaving.”  Please note that, “was headhunted” or “was offered a higher salary are not legitimate reasons to write on your resume even if they’re true or valid.  The person reading your resume won’t see those as positives (whether you agree with that person or not).

Mark, you attacked career independent contractors.  I’m one and making a great living.  Eff you!

Somebody wrote me a comment that he has been an independent contractor for many, many years and earns way more money than if he were an employee.  So he was angry with me and wanting to know why I had a problem with that?  Let me be very clear – I have NO problem with that.  Hats off to you, man.

Being a contractor can be great.  You can work for 9 months of the year and take 3 off every year if you want.  You can work like a dog for 2 years and then take 1 year off to travel the world.  Of you can just work the same as employees do but earn more money.  True.  Being a contractor isn’t for everybody.  It means you have to be good at marketing yourself to find new work.  It means that you may have great times and very lean times.  It means that people will always see you as a contractor.

I have no problem with using these people at companies I’m involved with.  I just don’t think that it makes sense to hire them full time – even if they want to join.  As the commenter said to me (paraphrasing) “I make too much money to be a full-time employee at a company.  Why should I join?”  Exactly.  My point is that if you do hire them then the fallback for them is so easy to just quit and go back to being a contractor that your chances of keeping them through difficult times will be harder than somebody who has not been a career contractor.

Is it possible that you’re totally wrong? That maybe job hoppers make perfect employees?

Sure.  I’m open to other people’s points-of-view.  I have read everybody’s counter point of which I was made aware.  One very good one was written by Paul Dix and can be read here.  He talks about why he’s not bothered about job hoppers when it comes to hiring developers.  His view is that he doesn’t want “loyal” employees. He wants capitalistic ones.  It’s worth reading.

For what it’s worth I never stated that I wanted people to stay at my companies for life.  Anyone who has ever worked with me at a company would have heard my speech since I gave it all the time, “it’s my job to make sure that you’re progressing here in your career.  Every year you need to wake up and ask yourself whether your resume is progressing, whether you’re still learning, whether you’re happy and whether you feel you’re earning enough.  If the answer is “yes” – awesome!  If they answer is “no” then let’s discuss it.  If we can help you get to “yes” we’ll work on that.  If we can’t then we’re happy to help you move on to your next company.”  And help we did.

All I asked for was for employees to work openly with me in this process.  To give us the benefit of the doubt that we did care about employees and wanted to see everybody develop their careers, increase their earnings and enjoy themselves.  I never asked for a life-long commitment.  The opposite of not hiring job hoppers does not equal asking people for a life of servitude.  That’s an incorrect inference.

Another good rebuttal was by William Ward and can be read here.  I love being challenged.  I love public debate.  I learn and am willing to change if challenged appropriately.  Unfortunately much of the commentary speaking against my POV was just personal attacks on me from people who don’t know me calling me all sorts of things not worth printing.

How do you treat people when they quit your company, Mark?

When people do quit a company that I’ve run I really seldom get angry.  If I want them to stay I normally start with the, “was there anything we could have done differently?” speech.  But most people who have made up their minds to leave are pretty determined.  So if there is no chance of a rescue I move quickly to the, “life is short and the world is small, so let’s stay connected” speech.  Even if I feel let down I often feel that if somebody is quitting unexpectedly then there is something that I need to learn from this.  Maybe I wasn’t clear enough that we want to reward our best people and are open to helping when they feel undervalued.

Quitting a job is not a death sentence.  I don’t run the mafia.  If someone talented has decided to move on then my hope is that some day we’ll have a chance to do business again in a different capacity.

And if you need to quit your current job it doesn’t make you a career job hopper.  Just be aware that if you do it often it will establish a pattern in future hiring people’s minds.  And in the minds of many VCs if you hope to raise money one day.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • HackerNews
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • email
  • Print
  • inboulder
    If your resume came across my desk, I'd treat your hopping between departments of the former Anderson Consulting behemoth the same way as changing jobs between silicon valley start-ups.
  • billbing
    I know I'm really late to this debate, but wanted to recommend that anyone interested in the math behind how long it takes for someone to repay the cost of training/hiring them, and then how long it takes them to reach a heightened level of productivity check out The Loyalty Effect, by Frederick Reichheld. http://amzn.to/9cB3xF

    Mr. Reichheld makes a powerful argument in support of customer loyalty, employee loyalty, and investor loyalty. He contends (with numbers as support) that you are much better off not hiring an employee with a track record of jumping ship. Even though the book was written in 1996, his points remain highly relevant today.
  • Riddance
    Fine, it works out. I wouldn't want to be hired by someone so closed minded as yourself anyway!!
  • that's the beauty in the world. we live in a free world where you can do that.
  • Working as an executive recruiter during the day and leading a team to create a solution for the "online job search industry" mess, I really enjoyed reading both articles. In my day to day experience, 90% of job seekers do understand that leaving companies too often simply because "the grass was greener" on the other side won't cut it in certain job interview situations when in competition with other solid candidates. When the economy heats up, employers are open to taking more risk on a "talented" candidate, but even when the job market is humming, a certain level of loyalty is very valuable. Going to share these articles as a resource to folks I meet everyday.
  • Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate that perspective.
  • deborah
    In each article, you've mentioned age. In the first article, you mentioned that a person 40+ should not have more than X number of jobs. In this article, you mention you don't mind if people have shorter tenure at a company if they are ages 25-27. Isn't it illegal to judge people for jobs based on age? Maybe you ask the oh-so-tricky what-year-did-you-graduate-from-college question?
  • I'm not talking about recruiting based on age, Deborah. I'm stating the obvious. If you're 40 and you've had 5 jobs it's very different than if you're 25 and you've had 5 jobs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out!
  • Guest
  • Yes, how perverse of me to think that somebody who is 40 and has worked for 5 companies (18 years working / 5 companies = 3.6 average years per company) would be more likely to be committed to my company than somebody who is 25 and worked for 5 companies (3 years working /5 companies = 0.6 avg years).

    Obviously longevity per company is only one metric. Then you obviously look at competence, performance, actual skills, references, how they do in the interview, etc.

    But give me a break. Of course longevity / employer is a factor. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. So happily I guess we'll never work together.
  • Guest
  • Mark, you absolutely killed it, and this post was a much-needed follow-up to your previous post on this subject. I found both sides (no pun intended) to be enlightening and I've learned a lot about how it looks. Thanks for taking the time to write them and for being humble enough to change your opinions if challenged appropriately. I love your view.
  • Mark,
    have you read this article? would be curious on your thoughts-> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Turnover-Crisis.aspx

    I don't have the experience you do but having been a job hopper myself and now an employer I can see where you're coming from but disagree. I went through 8 jobs and came in contact w/ a lot of lifers before I went off on my own. IMHO early-stage startups need people made of entrepreneurial fabric (and therefore people who lean towards the "restless" side- not hoppers, but restless entrepreneurs). Trashing the resumes of people who've had 6+ jobs by 30 just seems like a flawed preliminary screening strategy - you'll miss a lot of gems.

    One company that had an interesting culture was ArsDigita back in the day. They believed in retaining individual identity for their programmers & developing out their employees like athletes so that they'd someday leave the nest and be self-sufficient to go out on their own. More here: http://www.grid7.com/archives/140_faw-24-philip-greenspun-of-arsdigita.html

    You have many more years of experience than I so maybe I'm just flat wrong, but as a former job hopper myself it's tough for me to condone the strategy of immediately eliminating those people on the first pass through the pile.
    Sean
  • triciasalinero
    I completely agree with you. I'm a GenX with only 3 jobs over the last 20 years. I want to see advancement within the corporation, not job shopping for promotions and the same type of loyalty to the company that I've shown.
  • Matt Cameron
    A THOUGHT FOR EMPLOYERS

    Mark - Good follow-up post.

    If I may offer a thought on what employers may want to do to avoid a younger person 'Job Hopping' on them:

    The reality is that generally Gen-Y view every role as a means to acquiring new skills and moving up as fast as possible. My experience in spending considerable time with ambitious inside sales reps is that a simple question needs to be asked:

    "What are you seeking to learn, and how are you expecting to develop in this role?"... Followed up with - "And where do you see that taking you next?"

    In doing so we can avoid disconnects and get a feel for whether there is any runway for the individual in our organisation - The old, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" just doesn't cut it.

    Surprisingly, I have NEVER heard anyone be asked what they are hoping to learn in a role...
  • Jane
    Sorry, it 2010. Companies treat employees like dirt. This crap about job hopping makes no sense because employees are regularly hired and fired at the whims of execs.

    Companies expect employees to be loyal to them but have no loyalty for employees.

    It's ridiculous.


    You could work at a company for 5 weeks or 30 years and be fired/laid off.

  • philsugar
    Every job I've had since my first has been with somebody who has worked with/for me. This will continue for the rest of my life. (I never plan to retire)

    I judge my professional net worth by what the people that I've given opportunities to have done in other organizations.

    Having people leave isn't a bad thing. In some instances you just can't provide them the career advancement they need. If you have a great CTO, they will never get past them. If they want to become a lawyer....god knows why :-) you aren't a law firm. If they want to get their MBA and pivot, ok. If they don't like your industry fine.

    However if you're a revolving door there are only two reasons: You suck to work for or you've hired people that change jobs like underwear. If you avoid the latter, you can quickly understand if you're the former.
  • Kim
    Mark,

    I commend you for both the original post and this one. I know you got a lot of heat but I didn't think your post was harsh. It was frank. I've been in HR at one point for several years. When you read thousands or hundreds of resume at a time, your mind glaze over and you automatically filter no matter how fair you want to be. Mark's post was to help give some perspective.

    There is only so much that you can write and explain a complicated situation in a post. If you go into too much details, you bore people. If you keep to the bare bones, you get misunderstanding or assumptions that gets out of whack. I have found it best to look at posts as a starting point for a conversation.

    One of the things that job seekers or employees don't think about is the cost that it takes to bring an employee up to speed. If a privately owned business hires someone and invest $25-40M to bring that employee up to speed and the employee leaves in 18 mos or less, that just destroyed a large percentage of the company's earnings. Let me give you an example, salary $75K, benefits $20K, training $25K, licensing $15K/yr, overhead cost $8K,=$143K for one year (cost of recruiting not factored in). When the employee leave after 12 mos, that's money wasted for nothing. The job hopping employee benefited by getting the experience but the next applicants that the employer looks at will pay the price.
  • thanks for the input, Kim. It's great to have some input from HR about the costs. I appreciate your contribution as nobody had yet come from that perspective.
  • Kim
    Mark,

    Just to give the readers some perspective, last week another consultant posted an email he received from a friend. This friend got a job offer that he considered insulting to his talents because it did not pay enough for his preference. However, due to the fact that this is a tough job market, he accepted the job offer and continue to apply with other companies. He had every intention to jump to a new job as soon as a better offer comes through.

    He did not tell his employer what he is doing. His entire focus on this new job is how to get another one. Do the readers think this is ethical? How would they feel if they were the employer? Keep in mind, what if you are a small business and you are already paying top dollar or the most that you can afford. The money and time an employee waste can throw a small mom and pop operation out of business during this environment.

    I think these types of personalities are more what Mark is thinking of when he say "job hopper."
  • this is worth reading for a young person like me!!! In my previous company my manager never noticed whether people were really happy with the work and support;he always stood by his own people and that was disgusting. And thank god recession helped me getting out from there and finding a better job.
    thank you for the valuable suggestions Mark
  • James K
    Casual dating can be fun. Jumping from girl-to-girl (company-to-company) is a good time, especially if you trade up each time. But if you wake up one day and realize you've slept with half the county by the time you're 28, well, don't be surprised if I don't want to date you. I know what you're about. I'm not calling you a rake, I'm just saying that I'm interested in someone has shown they're interested in long-term relationships built on mutual trust and respect, on give and take.

    So, sorry to tell you this, job-hopper: it's not you, it's me :)
  • JC
    Suster,

    you are spending way too much time defending your point....can't make everyone happy no matter how you slice it and everyone knows that "grey areas" exist....focus on the blog, make some defending or concessionary comments and moved on....this generation of "job hoppers" can make all there excuses yet at the end of the day the Resume doesn't lie...
  • Yeah, you're right. Time to move on from the debate. Thanks.
  • Apologies if someone mentioned this on this post or the last one, lot's of comments hard to follow every bit of the conversation - that's a compliment, well done for creating such a great community here Mark.

    So, what about the opposite effect, as in what about people who stay in companies for way too long or who were at a company while it was in a downward spiral and didn't get out or weren't able to right the course, do you look at someone who was say at Aol for the last 6 years and think "Why the f*** didn't you leave or couldn't you find a better company to work for?"

    I ask because I've chosen to leave a company not unlike Aol to start my own company+do some independent consulting to pay the bills. But I worry whether I'm doing the right thing or if I should stick it out and try and help right the ship more.
  • Yes, the opposite problem is also true. If you stay at AOL or Yahoo! for 3-5 years people think that you had some loyalty in tough times. If you stay for 8-10 years at a company that seems past its prime I think most employers start to wonder whether you have initiative or you just stay put in a dead-end job because it's comfortable. This may not be fair, but I believe it is how most potential employers think. Thanks for the question. I think your move was likely the right one.
  • Thanks m, hope you remember that in a years time when we're looking for funding or have burnt out and I need a job ;-)
  • This is another great Post Mark. I think the take away from these two posts is that hiring is a complicated process based on your own past interactions (a "fool me once" situation). In my mind there are certain thresholds that are put on experience and that often changes based on the position that's being filled. I think you've done a good job of describing those in these two posts/many comments but people interpret them as Boolean filters. I firmly believe that in the hiring process, one should draw a gray area rather than a fine line but that's my experience as a young entrepreneur (I can't afford to shut a door without looking behind it).
  • It's true that it's a gray area. So as an employer when you see somebody in person you can make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. But when you look "coldly" at a big stack of CV's you act based on "rules." That's why I encourage people to look closely at how they write their CVs.
  • Absolutely. It's been very interesting to read other people's opinions on evaluating a resume.
  • philsugar
    Wow, wow, wow. I would never have imagined this would have stirred up so much hate. I guess the truth hurts.

    If you had put this in a third party perspective: there are lots of employers that screen job hoppers, people couldn't disagree maybe there would be less hate, but that's not how you write the blog and its not interesting.

    When it comes to the employee/employer relationship:

    As the employer:

    I need to help you grow professionally (classes, mentoring, etc)
    I need to help you advance your career (I really like advancing from within)
    I need to be upfront with you about everything (how you are doing, the company is doing, etc)

    As the employee:
    You need to give me best effort
    Help your fellow employees

    That's about it. The company doesn't owe you a job, and if you're not getting what you need you need to move on.

    That being said if you constantly move on it says a lot about you.

    Its no different than if I get a lot of independent feedback about myself. If one person says boy you came off arrogant....ok who cares...but when five people tell me that (and they haven't been consorting with each other) I really need to think about that.




  • Exactly. On all points.
  • I would like to join in on this passionate discussion. The ‘revisited” article provides some very good advice. Good points are made about contractors. My advice is to position your many contracts as a “Portfolio Career.” Once called freelance or self-employed, most portfolio careerists are highly educated professionals with expertise in their domain.

    For the budding investment bankers among us, bundling a bunch of contracts into a summer portfolio carer is a good way to gain experience. We’ll be writing more on how young investment bankers can cobble together a summer portfolio career on my M&A job site.

    I write extensively on how the current economic and regulatory events affect the investment banking employment marketplace. Feel free to visit my blog:http://www.mergersandacquisitionsjobs.org
  • sammysez
    Hi Mark,

    A big fan of your blog.

    And I have been an independent consultant for the last 8 years. So I do fall into your category of "do-not-hire".

    Here is a counter-point though. I love my lifestyle and my income, yes. And I am fortunate enough to be good enough at my work to get regular FTE offers from clients. Which I usually turn down after a serious evaluation.

    So, IF I were to seriously consider joining as a FTE, to me it means that I am interested despite the lifestyle and the income, and my willingness to give those up indicate my intent and interest in the company and the job more than the typical applicant that is moving from one steady job to this one. And you are right - I have options if the going gets tough. But to another reader's point - so do all the really good people in a team. My success as a contractor prior to joining would not be viewed as a liability, but as an affirmation of my skills, I would hope.

    Wouldn't you see this the same way as an employer?

    Looking forward to more articles that are straight up.
  • thanks for the input. if you were contracting at my company the good thing is that I'd have the chance to get to know you and that would trump anything that one could find on a CV. I'd be willing to bend my rules because I'd know you by then and be able to assess you differently. But if I saw your CV "cold" in a stack of other great ones you'd be at a disadvantage.

    re: star performers vs. contractors - I answered that question above where the guy originally asked it.
  • sammysez
    True - that is the easy scenario (the one where a prior interactions leads to an offer).

    The gray-zone scenario is if you saw a cold resume from someone like me. Wouldn't you think that this person is really interested if he is considering applying in the first place, given that he seems well set in his career as a contractor?

    In addition to that high level of implicit motivation, a typical consultant would bring in a lot of diverse experiences in various domains. The liability is they may not have seem a product go through multiple life-cycles, yes, but maybe someone else in the team would balance that out.

    Thanks.
  • mattvanhorn
    "you don’t do enough due diligence before joining companies"

    I'd be curious to hear more about what kind of due diligence people should be doing. I've been flat-out lied to by more than one company, in my career and not really sure how I could have known, although I have learned from each mistake, and never been lied to about the same thing twice.

    My last job hop had these characteristics:
    After 2 interviews, it seemed not to be for me - they hadn't really pressed me on my skills, and it seemed like they had a bit of a mess. I called to turn them down, and got asked to a third meeting with the head of the development dept.

    In that meeting, he acknowledged the mess, but said he was going to make it a priority to clean things up, and that would be a major part of my job. They also offered me a higher than average salary, and they seemed to be an up & coming company.

    Two days after starting, the head of development was shown the door, and his priorities with him. I found myself looking at the worst-written, worst-tested, worst-managed code I had ever seen, (including my multiple unhappy forays into dealing with foreign outsourcing firms) and there was no intention to improve. Additionally, long hours were expected, and weekend work, to mitigate the effects of this monstrosity.

    Did that company deserve anything better than for me to be on the phone with a recruiter at the end of my first week? Had it been slightly less bad, though, I might have stuck around for 6-12 months trying to make a difference, as did some (highly skilled) people hired around the same time as me. Now when they finally give up they have to worry about looking like a job hopper.

    You say 6 times unlucky is unlikely, but I've worked at 13 companies over the last 20 years, and only two of them stood out as places that deserved my loyalty. At one, I stayed 7 years, and then got killed in the dot com boom, and wound up out of work, owed 25 grand that I never saw, and with a baby due the week after my insurance ran out. At the other, I stayed for a year and saw my department eradicated amidst the start of the recent financial crisis and a merger that promised $500 million in cost cutting.

    Of the others, none were quite bad enough to fail fast, yet not good enough to stay at when a recruiter called, or I had a chance to move abroad, or a coworker from one of the good companies asked me to work with them again. So I don't think 6 times unlucky is that unlikely.

    And just for the record - that 7 years gig, was a start-up - thru thick and thin, from 4 people to 160. And I'm at a startup again, one of the first hires again, and loving it again - and planning to make it a success again. So it seems I am very suitable for start-ups, and maybe not so much for other companies.
  • Doraemon10
    You definitely are a good engineer and I can certainly relate to your situation. Shame on those who think people like you shouldn't be hired.
  • Speaking of how to treat employees that leave, what are your thoughts on the email exchange between Evan and Jason on Evans resignation from mahalo? Would be interesting if you questioned Jason on next weeks TWiVC...
  • Jason won't be there next week. I wouldn't have sent that email. I think Jason regrets it, too. I've seen several of his public Tweets where he has said, 'not my finest moment.' I think he acted on a moment of impulse and anger, emotions I could identify with but long ago learned not to send emails when I felt like that. But I'm not Jason's keeper so I can't say for sure how he feels.
  • philsugar
    The last two lines come off petty and bitter.

    However, I'd point out that Evan emailed Jason he was quitting.....how would that feel if the shoe was on the other foot and Jason told Evan via email he was fired?

    As for not taking notice....if you're going someplace somebody is not happy about like a potential competitor, they're not required to let you stay. Pay you yes, show you the door and turn off all logins: email, vmail, network, and mail you your stuff....yes.
  • You're right. I don't condone quitting via email. And I have no idea who Evan is so I don't know for whom he is going to work. I could see one being asked to leave on that day if it was somebody going to a competitor. I still wouldn't do it via email.
  • philsugar
    You can tell its a competitor.

    I've fired a lot of people....a lot. Used to do turnarounds.

    I personally do every one.

    I sleep in a separate room every time the night before....my wife knows how much I toss and turn and can't stand it.

    The easy route would be to do a chicken shit maneuver and have an HR person do it or worse do it by email, I expect the same respect.

    This has motivated me to blog. I'll do it by the end of the week.

    I'm going to do a good negative one......first set of topics are going to be:

    Euphemisms that people say right before they're going to fuck up your life (this is going to be better for everybody, you have a brave team, I have a fiduciary responsibility to my investors, fail fast etc) and things that "professionals" do that are going to fuck up your life (you need to capitalize development expenses, I need to manage how we hire and fire, we don't want to sit down with the other side face to face).

    There are no euphemisms, there is nothing nice about it....its a part of business.
  • I'm pretty shocked that you didn't list what for me was my no. 1 reason for job hopping.

    The company was going nowhere. Fast.

    Now, assuming you've worked predominantly at startups since graduation, you will probably run into more failed startups than non-failed ones. If a startup is doomed (and frankly, most are), the best time to bail is as soon as you recognize it. What you are advocating appears to be "sticking around" at a couple of these just to show you have staying power. Seriously?

    You did mention that perhaps employees should be doing their due diligence if they run in to a lot of bad companies, but let's be honest here - if VCs have a success ratio of, say, 1:6, how in Gods name would you expect employees who DON'T have access to all the same kind of research VCs do, to do any better at picking a business to work for that will survive and prosper with them?

    I get your point about there being hard times ahead, and that you will need to persevere. I'm on board with that, really. However, if you as an employee make an assessment that the future of the company is grim, it makes no sense to pour blood, sweat and tears into nothingness just so you can one day prove to a future entrepreneur that you'll be loyal. If it's hard times now, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel? Sure.

    Plus, what's this bullshit about contractors being bad to employ "because they can walk away"? The better an employee is the more options he will have by default. If you hire people on the basis of them being unable to easily walk into another job, you're discriminating against talent.
  • Colm,

    I think people who have chosen to be contractors for a very long time should stay just that - contractors. I think it's best for employers to avoid hiring them. How long is long? I can't say for sure. Let's say the past 4 years. It's my point of view - not fact. In my experience I have seen them quit too easily in tough times. As a hiring manager this is (and should be) one of the factors that goes into your decision. This is very different than somebody who is merely talented but might show more allegiance if you have tough times.

    I know you won't agree with that but I at least wanted to explain my POV.
  • I know, and as a contractor I *do* agree with you completely. I don't *want* to go back to being a permie. I've wasted enough of my life laboring under crappy entrepreneurs in return for worthless stock options. However, you completely missed my point.

    My point was that your criteria for dismissing contractors - ease of quitting - applies just as much (if not more so) to great employees. The better they are the more options they will have and vice versa. It's a terrible reason to not hire someone.

    Adopting a hiring policy that explicitly discriminates against people who have options is nine times out of ten the same thing as adopting a hiring policy that discriminates against talent.

    Also, you ignored my central point - job hopping in the startup world is as much a reaction to doomed companies (which are the majority) as it is a sign of flakiness or a lack of intrinsic loyalty.
  • I didn't miss your point, Colm. I just don't agree with it and I didn't want to inflame things further. But since you've asked again here is my POV:
    - amazing employees do have options, true.
    - but they tend to care about their career progression more than career contractors. they worry more about how their CV will look and they care about getting a positive reference from their employer.
    - that is no reason to take advantage of them. If you're an employer you need to try and be sure your star performers are happy. In my view you need to make sure that they are disproportionately happy. what do I mean by this? I think big companies hold back their best employees by establishing rules such as maximum pay increase per year. My view is that you OVER reward your best performers even if other people find out. Only a few key people in each company make the majority of impact so keeping these people is vital.
  • I'm curious on your thoughts as to Colm's other point - that once your personal assessment is grim (for the long term), should you stick around out of a sense of loyalty to the organization?

    I tend to agree with Colm here - once you've gotten a peek behind the curtain and have uncovered the "unknown unknowns", if your personal assessment is that the long term prospects are bleak, life is too short to stick around. I would tend to think that employers value someone with good judgment in that sense :)

    Of course, if this becomes a habit, that judgment might not be so great, and I think your point was that situations/decisions like this are the exception and would appear as such on an otherwise "normal" resume.

    Thanks Mark!
  • Doraemon10
    Well said!
  • Thanks Mark for the follow-up and the shout-out. I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas and I look forward to more.

    - wwward
  • Nice follow-up. It's too bad there's an inverse correlation between the size of your audience on the web and how well they behave, especially once you start getting major traffic off social news sites.

    Some free proof-reading (re your posting productivity, aren't there services for this?):
    every worked -> ever worked
    That an incorrect inference -> that’s
    Maybe I was clear enough -> wasn’t
  • Thanks for the support, Greg. And for catching the typos!
  • kris
    There wasn't anything wrong with that first post.



  • mattATL
    Mark,

    Thank you for your work.
    Assuming you are already past the hiring stage and want to hold on to the talent. Can you recommend any strategies to minimize the desire to job hop? - Obviously having a great working environment and a challenging role are critical, but it seems that for some talented / ambitious employees that is not enough.
    So are stock options the way to go? contractual commitments? (FWIW).
    What else encourages this mindset to invest in the vision, as the employer has invested in them? or is it generally a lost cause?

    Thanks
    Matt
  • Matt,

    It's not a lost cause. I'd like to write a post on that. Hope to get to it in the next month or two. If I don't feel free to remind me.

    Best,
    Mark
  • Roman Giverts
    I understand the need to be diplomatic and indeed your language was slightly adversarial (boo hoo hoo), but the majority (not all) of the commenters sounded like your typical B players blaming everyone but themselves. These are the exact people who should read your blog to gain some insight, instead they just keep on lying to themselves. I know B players at many companies ranging from 10 to 10,ooo employees, fast growing and slow growing... the thing they all have in common is that they all complain about their jobs. Too small, too big, not enough work, they work me too long, etc ,etc. I'm not convinced that all the people just happen to get "stuck" at bad companies time after time. I think most of them are at decent companies , and are just typical B players wanting life to be easy and blaming their employers for not making it so. Sorry guys, life is not a fairy tale, no matter where you work or if you start your own company.

    That's why this whole idea of "lets look at it from the point of view of employees" is not very interesting. Empathizing with employees is trivial, we've all been an employee. Emphasizing with employers is much more difficult, and that should have been the lasting message. If all those people want to be successful, they need to learn to emphasize with employers, not blame them for all their own problems.

    Since I went to the other side of the table and became an employer (pun intended), my understanding of how to be an A player employee has gone up 10x. I wish I had this insight earlier, and I've been trying to pass it on to my good friends and acquaintances. Once you understand the point of view of an employer, getting "great" jobs becomes much much easier... that should have been the lasting message.
  • John
    Hi, Roman, "job hoppers" are not B players. On the contrary, they are A+ players because they always have better pay and more interesting work lining up for them. B players are exactly those who stay in a sucky company for years and years and don't have the ball to quit because they are afraid of the risk involved. I see you have a startup now. If you want A players to remain working for you, then you need to treat them well. Provide them good pay/benefits and interesting work. If you are really good and contribute greatly to your company, give them some equity. If you act like an asshole, they will leave. Whining and complaining and accuse them as being B players won't help.
  • Richard Koffler
    If I'm not mistaken, Suster's posts relate primarily to screening resumes as they come in, not what happens after the CV pile has been culled to a manageable list of follow-ups. Clearly, commentators shouldn't confound these clearly separate steps of the hiring process.

    For hopping job seekers, probably the best advice from the posts is to write in their CVs the reasons for leaving.

    For employers, there is no easy advice. In my experience, far too many CXOs and their companies do a mediocre (often awful) job in managing their team from recruiting to terminating, and don't have it in them to learn from either their own experience or third-party advice.
  • I'd like to see a post from you on the flipside of this: how employers should build companies that people want to stay at.

    One example relevant here is that a lot of developers change jobs because they want technical novelty, professional challenges, and intellectual growth, while many employers want them to stay chained to the same ugly code base forever making minor fixes. When hiring developers, I'm ok with getting somebody who has job-hopped because of that; I know I can create an environment where the code stays good, where developers can try out new tools and techniques, and where people can move around.

    Despite my willingness to hire that particular sort of job-hopper, I have used similar screens to you, Mark. A lot of people job-hop for reasons that I don't think will get better when they're working for me. Why invest a couple of months in a search for somebody who will be likely be gone in a year?
  • Yeah, it's tough William. I know that the best developers always want to learn new technologies and yet often in a startup you also need people to do functional improvements, bug fixes and performance improvements. We always tried to give our developers some periods of focusing on the new stuff and some periods of SLJs (shitty little jobs).
  • Well, hiring a person for a startup who is jumping from company to company is not a good idea, unless... there are some serious reasons. I also have such filter that rises red flag on resumes, so it is necessary to clearly point reasons.

    But there are also interesting facts about working in general, if you will look at the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDLIwlzkgY they said a person by 38 will change 10-14 jobs, and this is just an estimation, nobody knows how it will go.

    Reasons might be different. For instance there are too many young people who start working for startups and it is ok for young generation to account things like personal relations or considering moving forward in learning something new. And it might be ok for majority of them to work at 2-3 places in the same time, and spend about 1 year for each startup, until they will find interesting place to stay for a longer time.

    Another reason, is that startup is a special case, some people just cannot handle the pressure and some percentage of the initial employees are always leaving in the first year. May be those people just shouldn't write this kind of short periods in resumes?
  • When I read the original post (and the heated replies), the first thing that occurred to me was that a lot of people were taking a lot of this stuff personally. It sort of implied therefore that there were quite a few "job hoppers" amongst your readership. And you know what, I think that's actually OK.

    The reason I think this is that I suspect most of the people who read your stuff are founders (or wannabe founders). Founders are "smart lazy" (or the good ones are). They look for an optimal path to success, and they iterate a lot.

    Employees in start-ups (i.e. probably not a high percentage of your audience) are NOT what you want in your business. High turnover in your team will kill your retained learnings (start-ups don't document much).

    My key point here is that I agree that you don't want "job hoppers" (whatever definition you use). But it's actually OK if you're one as a founder. Particularly if you subscribe to the lean start-up methodology. It annoys some founder egos, but these contrasting behaviours (where the less "socially acceptable" one is the entrepreneur) are vital if you're going to achieve success.

    Kudos for publishing something I've always believed, and shame on the community for generally jerking their knees into their own faces without thinking about context.
  • thank you, Jason. Plus, I love the term "retained learnings" as opposed to "retained earnings." I think I'll use that one!
  • damn mark. you put the haters in their place! i may refer to this as an excellent example of how to win beefs with one's audience. thank you for your contribution.
  • thank you. not an easy few days! I guess I should have been more careful with my language in the original post! my bad.
  • Paul
    "As an employer, if you are upset about someone job hopping from your organization to another, there’s a good chance you are upset because they were valuable to your organization, otherwise you wouldn’t make a fuss about it. Clearly you failed at your task of providing a suitable cultural fit for that particular employee. Don’t take it out on them by negatively labeling them, it only makes you sound desperate and bitter."

    http://www.gawrilla.com/2010/04/25/employers-influence-job-hopping/
  • That may be. But if I'm the person doing the hiring then these accusations are directed at the former employer, not me. If a person changes jobs a few times - fine. But if he or she changes jobs too often it will often reflect poorly on them. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way as a hiring manager. And if I'm right about how hiring managers think then young people at least need to be aware of it so that they make informed decisions about their career moves.
  • Both posts were insightful and, while a little over the top, well understood.

    My feedback has to do with your reasoning for throwing out independent consultants. Having had several friends that have been laid off in the past few years in the tech industry, I think I can speak with some sympathy to their situation and the choices they make.

    First, you are correct in the income opportunities it provides. But that's not to say that they wouldn't relish a great opportunity to be a part of an existing venture. Rather, many take this opportunity to re-enroll in the School of Experience, while waiting for the right opportunity with the right team. I think you would agree that it serves no purpose to jump to a new company, only to find that had they waited another 6-12mos a plumb chance to follow their passion would have come along.

    Personally, I would rather see someone with 2yrs consulting on their resume than 2yrs at a job they took because it was the easier route. In summary, I think that your filtering process may overlook some really great individuals who aren't willing to settle and are making good use of these economic times to prepare themselves for greater opportunities.

  • Christopher,

    I have no problem with 2 years as an independent consultant. It happens. It's when it becomes longer that it starts to look more like a career choice.

    And, yes, my language in the first post was a bit "over the top." I acknowledge that.

    Mark
  • Jim
    I don't think you needed to be more sensitive, I thought you just presented your opinion clearly with a bit of passion. As a job-hopper myself, and a contractor for the last couple of years, I've put quite a bit of thought into how that's seen by the employers, and their interviewers, that I've been lucky enough to invite me in to discuss permanent positions. Pretty educational watching the discussion unfold so far.

    (Ps, Typo in your link to the post about public debate.)
  • Roman Giverts
    Great little piece of wisdom here. Nothing wrong with being a job hopper or a contractor, as long as you understand that's what you're doing and understand the potential positive and negative consequences. It seems many people in the comments who were job hoppers had difficulty identifying themselves as one and didn't want to face reality of being one.
  • Thank you for the spot. Not a good place for that typo ;-)
  • pauldix
    Thanks for the mention Mark. I totally agree with your approach to ensuring you're helping your employees grow and remain happy. I also think that your approach on what to do if they leave is spot on.

    I guess my primary disagreement is just on using job hopping as a resume filter. I think it's better to hear from the candidate why they left previous companies. If they totally bad mouth all their former employers then like you said, it's a no hire. But you won't get to hear what they have to say if you filter them out first.

    The truth is that for developers that I'd hire, I probably already know about them. Or I can easily find their code, commentary, and footprint online. I use that as my filter for whether or not they get an interview.
  • The problem, Paul, is that most hiring managers DO filter for job hoppers. So do many recruiters. I want young people to realize that. Both because I think much can be learned from staying at a job for a longer period of time and also because if you do "hop" a few too many times you need to be strategic about how you craft your resume. The job of the resume is to get the interview. Once you have that you have a chance to explain everything and also to show your talents.

    Regardless, nice post. I don't take any issue with it.
  • pauldix
    I completely agree that most hiring managers filter for job hoppers. I put that in the disclaimer at the top, but I probably should have been more clear. It's a good idea to not hop around too much because of the negative viewpoint hiring managers have of that kind of behavior. However, my hope is that the hiring managers that use job hopping as a filter will read the post and possibly rethink their position.
  • Very P.C. of you Mark. The controversy is all but gone now. Way to take the high road and dilute the debate!

    Seriously though, good stuff. Great topic of the week.
  • :-) wasn't trying to be PC. It's just that I have a more nuanced view than it would appear from my original post or from what the people who have debated me think. Yes, I was writing from the employer's perspective in my first post. No, I have not always been an employer. I worked for nearly 10 years before setting up my first startup. So I know what it is like to be an employee. So I just wanted to come at the issue from another perspective.

    And I have no problem with your post. http://www.gawrilla.com/2010/04/25/employers-influence-job-hopping/ You argued respectfully. Thank you.
  • Hi Mark, Sorry you had to take a lot of negative heat for the post.. It is really annoying to be attacked personally by people who cannot attack an argument.

    That said, I believe that post is most applicable to a young startup where you need people that are willing to go on the journey with you... At least a long distance of the journey. If you have hopped from 5 startups in 6 years, there is absolutely no way I would hire you. Why do I believe I can keep you when others have failed?
    In Nigeria, some companies do not hire first class graduates because they know they cannot match Shell or Mobil and are sure the 1st class employee will only use their resources to facilitate job applications to bigger companies.
  • Paul
    It's because my comments are deleted that's why i tried other ways to comment.Your reply and my previous comments are all deleted by Mark. Apparently, he can't tolerate different opinions. Here is my reply to your post that was deleted by Mark. Hope you read this before he deleted this one.

    No, "job hoppers" or great enginners are the ones you should look for for small start ups. Why? Just look at the all the great companies. How many of their first employees still working for them? They moved on and it's fine. "job hoppers " may leave later but that doesn't mean that they can't contribute greatly. Gmail was started by a job hopper. Don't be brainwashed by Mark's post. Look at the facts and think for yourself.
  • Roman Giverts
    Paul Bucheit, the guy who did gmail, was at google for 7 years. His "4 month" jobs were summer internships while he was in school lol

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbuchheit

    oops....
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: