The Long-Term Value of Loyalty

by Mark Suster on April 27, 2010

Oh, boy.  Here we go again.  Another post on job hopping.  This will be my final word on the topic.  I promise.  My goal here is to move the debate forward, add my POV but not inflame things any further.  Inflaming was never my goal. Let’s see if I can achieve that.

My WORD of the day is “loyalty.”  It’s one of the angles that people who were angered by my original post the most found so offensive.  I think because I implied too hard that job hoppers were disloyal.  So rather than focus on that angle I’d like to focus on the opposite.  The benefits of being extremely loyal.

My original post was directed at hiring managers.  It said that I didn’t believe it was a good idea to hire job hoppers.  I should have kept it in third person.  I should have chosen less inflammatory words.  I didn’t mean to be so insulting and I didn’t mean for the net to be cast so wide that many people wondered whether I was talking about them when I was speaking of “job hoppers.”  I learned a lot from reading the comments.  Most were constructive – even the ones that were harsh.  I’ve already apologized for my tone so I hope you’ve accepted that.

My view still stands – for many hiring managers a large factor in looking through resumes of somebody who is 30+ and has never worked somewhere for more than 18 months will be the job hopping element.  There is a high probability that the person you’re hiring will leave you within 18 months.  You have at least 6 data points to suggest this.  3 or 4 may be for completely understandable reasons.  Since recruiting is so time consuming and costly it is better to focus on people more likely to stay longer.

For those that disagree – let’s please just agree to disagree.  It’s a subjective topic.  We’ve all had more than enough of our views aired on this one.  Moving on ….

My second post was directed at employees.  I wanted to make it clear that I personally believe it is OK to quit a job in which you’re unhappy.  I believe that it’s OK for young people to learn and try different roles, companies and geographies. If you’ve moved around a bit when you’re early in your career that won’t likely be held against you.   Yes, I know that many employers are bad.  I’ve worked for bad bosses before.  I never implied that startups are all great and job hoppers are all at fault.  I know that there has been downsizing and that has led to some job changes.  Some amount of change is expected.  It’s just that if you’ve had 6 jobs in a row of each 18 months or less the person who is looking to hire you at the next job is naturally going to wonder whether it’s a pattern.  Your job will be to convince them that it’s not a pattern.

So I advised people with a lot of job hopping on their resumes to try and limit the number of them listed.  Getting an interview is the first chance you have to convince the potential employer otherwise.  If you want that advice please click on the link.

I also made in clear that I have NO problem with people who choose to be independent contractors as a career choice.  To the contrary – if you know how to sell your own work, can negotiate good rates, network well, keep consistent work and have a great reputation – it can be very rewarding.  If you’ve done it for a long time then I usually advise hiring managers to hire you as contractors and not full-time employees.

Finally, I made clear that there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule.  They come in the form of personal references.  No rule is ever absolute no matter how it sounds when one writes a blog.

But one theme really didn’t come through in either of my posts and it’s an important point.  There is a lot of long-term value in loyalty.  And I think this is sometimes missed by those who run to quickly to greener pastures.

The things you learn in tough environments

Most of what I learned about operating startups I learned from the really tough years at my first company from 2001-2003.  That is when no customers wanted to work with Internet startups because we as an industry had burned so many customers.  No employees wanted to join startups – they were all looking for stable jobs.  My company had raised venture capital in April 2001 but we were told that there may never be any more coming.  I was paid less in salary in 2004 than I was paid at the job I quit in 1999 (a job I had held 8+ years).

But in these years I learned how to sell software – necessity is the mother of all invention.  I learned how to better run a product management process.  I learned how to integrate customers into our product development process.  I learned how to better set goals for employees and reward those that performed well.  I learned how to retain employees when stock options were no longer a real currency.  I learned how to get press coverage when we were no longer “hot.”  I learned how to manage costs effectively.  I learned that I had a lot to gain by not being so adversarial with my competitors.

I never built Google.  I’ve acknowledged that many times.  But in our first year of sales (and those were really shitty years to be selling software) we sold $2.1 million, then $5.9m, $7.7m and we ultimately sold when we hit $14 million and had more than $30 million in backlog revenue.  I learned about revenue recognition.  I learned how to establish a technology center in India and how to manage disparate development teams (and this has drive my thoughts also about what does NOT work.).  I learned how to establish sales targets and how to manage a sales pipeline.  I learned how to do a pipeline review with sales people without getting bullshitted to.

Listen, I’m not telling you these experiences are for everybody.  But these are things you could never learn in 18 months.  These are things that my team learned with me by sticking around.  No doubt they have more intimate knowledge of these processes since they actually ran them.  We let everybody “punch above their weight class” in terms of roles & responsibilities.  We all learned.  And eventually many of us also made money.

The relationships you build will be enduring

One of the things that Jason Calacanis talks about in his post on the topic is the value of personal loyalty.  He’s right about this.  The people that I’m closest with in life are: my family, my high-school & college friends and the people that I worked with in my startups.  We were all at each other’s weddings, brit milah / baby namings and unfortunately a funeral.  We were family.  We ARE family.  I would do anything for these people.  I wrote a large check to one of them for a startup with no product and no real plan.  He was there for me when I needed it.  I sent numerous emails for another for a job opportunity and he is now a senior exec at a very prominent startup.  He’s family and he knows it.

We were in the trenches together.  We fought for every customer together.  Hell – we fought against the VC’s together!  And we all worked on the exit together.  Like many of you, I have many friends and close relationships.  But to anybody who has ever been on the startup battlefield with other people who all stuck in it together I think they’ll likely understand where I’m coming from.  Loyalty in times of adversity separates out your true lifetime friends and colleagues.  And to be clear – I was loyal back.  I think leaders who quit in times of adversity and leave the teams to fend for themselves are no better than employees who quit easily and early.  Quitting would have been the easiest thing for me to do.

I’m not saying that means that all people at startups were treated like family.  If somebody at a startup mistreated you then I understand your not sticking around.  And I’ve already stated that I understand sometimes it makes sense to go elsewhere and learn from new companies and new management.  But if the reason your bailing is simply because somebody has offered you a 20% pay increase, I would ask you to consider the following:

Short-term vs. long-term benefits

Yes, you can always earn more by quitting.  I said this all the time to the employees at my companies.  ”I know you can earn more by leaving.  I hope that I can convince you to stay every year by making your resume more valuable in the long-term than the immediate bump to go where the grass is greener.”

Think about me as an example.  I didn’t make retirement money when I sold my first company.  But the firm that funded my first startup was loyal to me for having stuck around in what they knew to be pretty tough times and having suffered much dilution.  They seed funded my second company and even let me buy some IP in exchange for debt to get started.  The people that I brought to my second company all worked at my first company.  I was loyal to this group of people and still am.  I then sold my company to Salesforce.com and did finally make the money I had set out to make the first time.  Our whole team earned good money and every single employee is still employed by Salesforce more than 3 years later.

Each of us could have traded in our jobs at any moment for a pay increase at any time.  I think each and every one of us gained more in the long-run by having stuck with things.  We have all gained both financially and in terms of career progression.

So how did I come to work in the world of venture capital?

That VC who saw me stick through hard times at my first company and get an exit at both companies is the firm where I’m now a partner.  We built a long-term relationship.  I knew my partners for 8 years before joining GRP.  When I called them to say I was thinking about starting a new company they asked if I would consider joining them as a partner.  It is nearly impossible to get a job as a general partner in a VC firm – let alone when you’ve never worked in venture capital.  This came through the long-term commitments that I made years prior.

Again, I’m not trying to rub your nose in it if these aren’t the choices you make.  I’m just trying to convey that sometimes long-term gains come from not making short-term moves that seemingly improve your bottom line and career trajectory.  Make sure that you understand the pro’s / con’s for yourself and at least consider whether there might be longer-term implications for sticking around.

Their is huge value of personal networks in determining your long-term career trajectory.  Mix that into your decision-making pot at the time you make the leap.

Text

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • HackerNews
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • email
  • Print
  • Amazingly good insight on job loyalty-- I wish I had read this earlier, since it would have saved me a lot of money in hiring.
  • Amazingly good insight on job loyalty-- I wish I had read this earlier, since it would have saved me a lot of money in hiring.
  • mlee
    Loyalty is a two-way street. You show loyalty to get loyalty. And you can't be selective - you need to show loyalty to everyone - except those who betray your trust. This is extremely hard for an employer to do in reality. Having been through no fewer than 6 rounds of layoffs in 10 years... having seen sobbing in bathrooms and a father laid off the day before his baby was born... I haven't seen a lot of loyalty in the workplace during my career.

    The problem with all of this is that most employment is at-will, employers can and do fail, and stability and growth have never been less sure than they are today. Employees are skittish, they are trying to protect their homes and familes... all this conspires to keep loyalty at bay for the near term.

    I find it interesting that this conversation is coming up in the midst of a massive recession, at a time when many of us lowly employee-types have become job hoppers by no choice of our own, at a time where the feeling of opportunity and possibility has never been lower.

    I don't live in Silicon Valley and there are no internet startups here that I would want to work for. I have a wife, house, and children so I can't devote my entire life to a company anymore. I've moved around by choice and been forced to move around as well, I'm sure Mark would have seen my resume and trashed it too, but that's OK, thankfully there's other employers who aren't as picky. Although my goal is always to stay with a company for the long-term, I am not looking for a family and have no expectation of that type of relationship with my employer.
  • Hai,
    Your article too good, very useful for me,Who are all looking for part time and home based jobs, Visit the website: https://greatlance.com/.
    In this website you can Find a freelancer as well as you can find number of projects for home based working.

  • Not sure why you apologize. when Napoleon was asked how he picked his generals, he replied: I pick the lucky ones... or so they say.

    I liked your original post and it reminded me of the napoleon quote. business is war. Unfortunately the original post by JC is more about his own personal Waterloo than anything else. keep up the good work.
  • I remember how our junior engineers at my 1999-2001 dot.com became "mid-level" within 7 weeks and demanded (and got) big raises because of how valuable they now were on the open market. I remember how only 7 weeks later they were "senior" and again demanded raises because now they were even more valuable on the open market. When we implored them to be patient and let us have just a little of the value they had gained by being paid to learn on the job at the company before holding us hostage for more money, they laughed.

    Loyalty is something that comes from within. A sense that you actually need to give something is a character trait. Both are (strangely) rather rare. The engineers above were loyal in their minds because they gave us a chance to keep them, I guess....
  • My business partner once told me that in general "as you get older you seek long-term relationships more than new experiences". Perhaps as you get older you realize the longer term business relationships are more rewarding than changing jobs every 2 years.
  • kennicholas
    Mark, I was one of those quite caustic in my comments on your first article along these lines. No doubt about that. Your 'clarifying' statemements since then make sense...I'm glad you wrote them...and make you out as far less of a Corporate Shill than it first appeared.

    That said...even here, with this post, your position on 'loyalty' and longevity is nearly pie-in-the-sky idealism, if I may. Companies can drop an employee at the drop of a hat now [and do it all the time], almost making your whole point moot.

    Now, especially in the StartUp/Media/Hi-Tech world, would many or most people prefer to stick it out at all costs? Probably a lot would *IF* they knew that sentiment would be returned. But, especially with the fragile economy now, is it being returned? Is it being felt as such?

    If that answer is 'yes', [and you discern this in your hiring process by questions, etc], and people still 'hop', THEN your point is totally valid, in my mind.

    Either way, right or wrong, you've brought up a crazy hot subject with great dialogue surrounding it, that is leaving very few of us bored right now!
  • thomsinger
    It has been very interesting to read this series of posts. And the comments. It is a reminder to all who blog that absolutes cause people to get upset.
  • inboulder
    I think you're missing the point that your experience is highly atypical, and you're extrapolating myopically from this view. Most corporations are pathologically disloyal, a few are good eggs. To apply any semblance of reasonableness to an 'avoid job hopper' strategy, one needs to determine if the prospective employee move was a 'move' from a disloyal corporation, or a 'hop' from one of the good eggs.
  • Roman Giverts
    Mark,
    Can you talk a little bit abiut the number of employees at your first company. And of the ones you said went with you to your second company, how many is that? Also, all those that are still at salesforce, how many is that? It seems easy to treat your employees as family when theres 10. But perhaps you can comment on how to treat them like family when there are 30, 50, 100+ employees, which is I think the ranges Mahalo is in. At these sizes, it seems much more difficult, yet strong employees leaving companies this big/small is still a huge loss.

    Also, what were the accelerations for your employees when salesforce bought your company? Just wondering if perhaps it might not all be loyalty, but also vesting on a big pay day. I agree with everything you said about loyalty; I'm so loyal I've gotten my hair cut by the same lady for the past 12 years, even as Ive moved around :) . But I think what you said at the end about the long term consequences is even more important. Both in the network you build, but also understanding the true value of your equity and the development of your skills. I think people focus a little to much today's salary and today's title. If your goal is to make a meaningful 6 figure salaries, that's fine. But if you want to be retired before you're 40, and I think we all do, there's really no other choice but to get a meaningful amount of equity, at an early stage at a company that becomes hugely successful, and stick it out to help grow that company let your equity fully vest.
  • Two things, Mark: first, your incentives as an owner, not a worker, are far different, and second, both you and your coworkers and your VCs were all lucky enough to as a group discover other people worth trusting. It's that second point that I think you didn't see in your first two posts. This is a hard thing to find, even harder than evaluating during an interview if someone will be a good employee: how do you figure out, in the 90 minutes you meet someone, if they will screw you if given the opportunity or be generous or be somewhere in the middle? I'd say it's impossible; you can really only make that determination with time and exposure to someone. Part of the reasons I've left a job is finding that the people I worked for were untrustworthy, but I really don't know how I was supposed to find that out before working for them. And yes, I would love to find an awesome boss that I trusted and work my ass off for him or her. Unfortunately, that's a two way street and harder to find than I think you realize.
  • marilynbyrd
    Mark,

    You aren’t wrong. Job hoppers require much more attention than someone who has a history of staying power.

    As an executive recruiter who interviews people for a living, anyone who has a history of job jumping is going to get a great deal more scrutiny in the interview process. Of course, if their career history is going to pass the red flag test, they should expect this and support it with a great personal narrative and dynamite references.

    Aaron Patzer, the founder and CEO of Mint.com said about hiring that “the why is always more important than the what.” You can identify patterns in a person’s career evolution by asking Why did you choose to take that job? Why did you choose to leave?

    I interviewed a candidate earlier this week who had a choice between the MBA programs at Harvard and Columbia. She chose Columbia because she thought their program would better address what she was missing from her knowledge base. Throughout her career, she made similar choices, always seeking to learn something she didn’t know, reaching for the challenge. That single pattern told me volumes about who she was.

    She was not a job hopper, but I find that patterns in job hoppers are pretty easy to identify and are great indicators of why you should or shouldn’t beware.
  • marilynbyrd
    Mark,

    You aren’t wrong. Job hoppers require much more attention than someone who has a history of staying power.

    As an executive recruiter who interviews people for a living, anyone who has a history of job jumping is going to get a great deal more scrutiny in the interview process. Of course, if their career history is going to pass the red flag test, they should expect this and support it with a great personal narrative and dynamite references.

    Aaron Patzer, the founder and CEO of Mint.com said about hiring that “the why is always more important than the what.” You can identify patterns in a person’s career evolution by asking Why did you choose to take that job? Why did you choose to leave?

    I interviewed a candidate earlier this week who had a choice between the MBA programs at Harvard and Columbia. She chose Columbia because she thought their program would better address what she was missing from her knowledge base. Throughout her career, she made similar choices, always seeking to learn something she didn’t know, reaching for the challenge. That single pattern told me volumes about who she was.

    She was not a job hopper, but I find that patterns in job hoppers are pretty easy to identify and are great indicators of why you should or shouldn’t beware.
  • Am surprised at the vitriol being spewed about this topic. No matter how violently someone disagrees with your thesis, is it so hard to imagine that some other hiring manager may possibly share the same opinion? And when faced with a stack of resumes to sift through, is it so hard to imagine that, all things being equal, the guy who generally sticks around will be more desirable than the guy who doesn't? That said, *of course* there are exceptions.

    I think the undercurrent of a lot of the frustration, however, is actually rooted in a perceived lack of corporate loyalty. Prior to the dotcom burst, lay-offs seemed really rare, and both companies and employees tried to create career long relationships. Companies that my parents worked at like 3M, Dupont, tried to create lifers. Things like pension plans existed, and people spent their entire careers in one place. After the dotcom bubble, once companies popped that "lay-off cherry", it seems like companies suddenly got comfortable with it. Whereas there used to be more discipline in hiring only when there was a long term fit, because layoffs were taboo and painful, companies seemed far more comfortable with hiring if there was a short term need, and if that need goes away, then lay them off. It happens at both startups and big companies. In fact, that's (a small) part of the reason I left Symantec. What's the point of being at a large company if it had more layoffs during my tenure than any of the startups I'd been at? So I feel like in the past 10 years or so, a new company culture has arisen where companies aren't as disciplined at hiring people because it became easy and acceptable to get rid of people. This in turn created a culture where employees feel disposable, and at any given moment they could be replaced. As a result, people no longer feel loyalty to the company. Combine that with the general Gen Y culture, and you get a generation of job hoppers.

    That said, I think the point still is, there's value in sticking around under the right circumstances, and there is negative value in a resume full of short stints (because of perception, not always reality). Just cause a company isn't loyal doesn't mean you should go ahead and hurt your own career. People need to figure out what they want to make out of their career, and align their decisions based on achieving that goal. If a high salary is what you need, then hopping jobs will probably get you there (but you will be capped). If you want to start your own company, or really have a standout career, then the experience and network is what you need, and you don't get that from job hopping.
  • John
    Mark,

    I agree with you but I feel like you are missing one key, most people work at big companies, in which there is no real loyalty, and there is no real connection. Or they work at smaller firms that are not loyal, your description of the workplace I feel is highly Utopian and maybe geared more towards 1% of companies and jobs out there.

    I would argue most companies care about making themselves rich and not their employees, which is fine, but the average worker bee at XYZ company most likely will not benefit the way you portray your loyalty to your former employees.

    Think about the average Real Estate Property Manager, Salesperson, Nike Employee, Coke Employee, Yahoo, Google..... do you really think after putting in 4 years you are going to have people looking out for your best interest they way you portray you do, I don't think so. Maybe I am jaded by bad experiences but nonetheless that is my view. Perhaps the top echelon of people in the most unique situations gain from loyalty as you write but I do not think in general that is true.
  • philsugar
    Ironically I run a "loyalty" software company but I think the word is WAY overused.

    Loyalty means you stay with the person even when they've done you wrong.

    Amongst the core team, damn straight you better be loyal. You leave the field with the ones you went on with. Period.

    However as an employee outside this core team its back to my value exchange which is what I say we do value exchange marketing:

    Employer needs to:

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

    Employee needs to:

    Give best effort
    Help your fellow employees

    There are bad employers, there are bad employees. So what. Move on.

    All my needs are subjective....but you have to start to wonder if somebody always moves on can you ever satisfy them?

    I'll give an analogy. I bet you know somebody that is the biggest pain in the ass when they go to a restaurant. I mean every effing time something is wrong. You just can't please them. You have to ask what makes you think you can?


  • Job-hopping is a sensitive subject here in Silicon Valley. When it comes to relationships, friendships, hobbies etc is very common and accepted to "jump around" and be loose. "Last year was all Tahoe, this year BVI..." But ultimately why this topic strikes such a narrow chord is because so many entrepreneurs are guilty of it, in fact many founders of startups do so because they are incapable for working for others.

    I think if you are under 30 and in this industry having one role for close to 2 years is enough to show that yes you can stay put long enough to outlive all the interns and build customer relationships. But if one truly wants to learn all aspects of business or (how to "flip burgers" as Mark says) the best thing is to diversify while you can. At 25 yrs old I can happily say I did the 2yr gig managing a massive API rollout product for a large corporation which taught me how to scale while politically managing fractions corporate culture, but the other positions I held for shorter times like 8mos, 1yr, and 6mos etc taught me much more about how to adapt to new situations *quickly.* Now as CEO and founder of a startup I have a glimpse of every step of a product from designing, executing, selling, and planning all of which if I felt compelled to stay in every position I had for several years for the sake of looking stable, would mean I'd be starting my company at 35. As I hire now I think, 'if I can get two years out of this kid that'd be great" Ultimately in the Bay Area people are always loyal to each other even in face of company changes, its like a Frat or private club. If I loved someone for 6 months on a project and crossed paths a few years later that bond is still there.

    For twenty-something entrepreneurs I think loyalty and love is still there but more fluid and first defined by friendship that translates into business not vice versa. Great post Mark, let's see your thoughts after GOAP.
  • Interesting post - my favourite line was "sometimes long-term gains come from not making short-term moves that seemingly improve your bottom line and career trajectory."

    I both agree and disagree with the idea that staying at a company for a long time leads to more gains than making short-term moves. I agree in the sense that it looks better on your resume to stay longer, and it helps you build relationships and knowledge within a company.

    But from personal experience sometimes leaving after a short time can be the absolute right decision. I was at a PR agency for a year when I had the opportunity to leave to be the Community Manager at a startup. I liked the agency I was at, but I was really junior and didn't get to contribute much to strategy and campaign ideas, and I felt that even if I moved up in the company I wouldn't be learning more of what I was interested in - which was new media communications.

    Leaving that job was the best thing I could have done for myself - my time at a startup has taught me more than I could have ever learned at the agency, and I've found my passion (entrepreneurship). And now, 18 months later, I couldn't be more loyal to this startup, and would never dream of leaving.

    I think being a serial job-hopper is generally a bad thing - but making a strategic move to increase your learnings and expose you to a new type of environment is crucial. It was the best decision I've made in my career.

    Erin
  • garydpdx
    Yes, Erin, there can be good reasons to make the 'jump'. Even people who have not done so in the course of their careers, may be faced with the prospect of doing so as we recover from the Great Recession. People who have been able to keep their jobs at the cost of stagnant or reduced wages, and likely lost benefits, or those who have taken jobs at lower pay, lower rank, will be looking for a positive change. While financial reasons will be compelling, the opportunity for growth will make it overwhelming!
  • This is a great post. One thing you might have added is the basic advice inherent in it for start-up employees -- "be loyal", especially to the founders/CEO when the company is small. While founders/CEO will value quality #1 in employees, they have to value loyalty #2, b/c so much can go wrong, and they need loyal people they can trust as the company morphs from phase to phase. Being loyal doe NOT mean not quitting -- but it means being honest and positive, and going the extra yard not every day -- but when it really matters (not when it's convenient). [It does not mean selling up, smoozing, or telling the founders/CEO how great they are.]
  • Rube Suckerman
    Two golden rules. The man who boasts of his own honor is not to be trusted. When a company starts talking about loyalty, it is time for employees to update their resumes.

    I would agree with this post if employee loyalty were rewarded in turn, but too often, I have seen environments where everyone except a handful of insiders were expendable.

    If I am engaged and treated with respect, I'll work on a project for years. However, I won't hesitate to walk when I see signs of insider dealing, and haven't regretted the two jobs I bailed out of within months.

    Life is too short to work for people who only view you as a means to line their own pockets.
  • Mark - What an amazing post. I just want to thank you. Loyalty is something much of our society doesn't value enough. Besides my immediate family, my longest lasting, my loyal relationship is with my best friend and business partner.
  • vjgoel
    Mark,
    Great series!

    From my vantage in hiring (and already churning through) a number of people in my wife's new restaurant (http://www.bitebar.com) it seems to me that you're using a number of proof points to seperate out two different types of people:

    1) Mercenaries: They always chase after loot and leave chaos in their wake. Their quest for plunder and maximizing their own return doesn't build companies. These are people that you can't invest in...as others on the board have noted, you can use them for immediate production but that's likely to expose a somewhat weaker than expected set of skills (as they haven't been anywhere long enough to really have a highly honed and deep toolkit). More importantly, people like this will screw up your culture by focusing more on "me" than "we"

    2) Masons: These people want to build something. And they want to build themselves professionally by stretching themselves as they work with great teams on big projects. As they take ownership of these projects, they'll work night and day to make sure their "baby" makes it. These are the people you give stretch roles to...and understand that you'll take a short term hit as they're punching above their weight class. They'll reward you with a tireless commitment to show you that you made the right choice...and once they break through, these are the lieutenants that will grow with your organization and grow the people you need to create a great company.

    Extract in the near term vs. invest in the long term. Both are viable types of people for different needs...you just need to know what to expect when you're making the hire.
  • thanks, vijay. I like that: mercenaries vs. masons. I often speak of mercenaries vs. missionaries and how I prefer the latter in startups. It's why I like to back founding teams vs. hired CEO's. That said, both have their place. Hope you're well.
  • I am utilizing this space to think out aloud and having done so I will move on to my next port of call. What I want to personally thinking about is the relationship between meaning creation, convergence and divergence of this meaning and its implication to the long-term value of loyalty.

    There is no disloyalty in disagreement. To agree without thinking or simply discuss for the sake of discussion is one of the most disloyal things I can think of and this article as I read it supports this view, because it is saying that loyalty begins at the core and disloyalty is a form of fragmentation of our own lives. IMHO as our universe of attention expands there is going to be inevitability of dissipation (dissipated attention) and this fragmentation will increase.

    The only way of beating that expansion is to grab that attention back. The best thing in that regard is to stop reading what I have written here as a response but simply explore one's own thoughts and there are zillions of thoughts to explore today. Arguments about personal beliefs are stupid. The only person who can test their own truths is the person who has lived that truth - and then retest this again.

    I am here not because I am a loyal subscriber to the views of Mark Suster, but because the loyalty that I am in competition with is my own center and core of being i.e. my own life purpose and the people I most directly share that purpose with. This is then a personal conflict where I am thinking out aloud in what is already a public battlefield. The war that matters isn't public opinion but the war we engage with the nature and quality of our own emerging thoughts.

    The nature of work itself changed before I was born, so I did not create this work ethic or belief. Where work became the center of meaning yesterday, today it is beginning to lose its moorings and such a loss should not IMHO be mistook for disloyalty. Before the industrial age shaped us for a mass market, the center of meaning was in our homes.

    The nature of the industrial age workplace displaced this sense of meaning from the family to the workplace, to such an extent that people don't even blink or think twice when asking the perennial question "what is it that you do?" The answer here seems clear enough - workplace equals meaning.

    I say f#@k that.

    Meaning in my life has begun to return back to my home because I am concerning myself about where loyalty should begin. Now if I shape my workplace with an extended sense of core values and as a family then I agree with Mr Suster's viewpoint that job-hopping is not at all good, but what does agreement serve me if my purpose is not to change my own life. Other people's lives are their own business, each person is responsible for changing their own life and in our century that choice is not as much dictated by our immersion in work.

    What I would love to see is the shift of meaning creation from the workplace back to the home and village. From there I can see that we can create new centers of loyalty but I have no magic wand and I don't want to perpetuate a fantasy.

    The commercial world is however increasingly globalizing, and attention will continue to fly onwards and so I have no desire to fight against an immovable force. It is such an immovable force that a long thoughtful comment is less desirable today than a short-sweet comment that seeks to change everything except the life of the commenter.

    Look first what we do online. Twitter has changed its question from "What are you doing?" to "What's happening?". People are beginning to talk about what is happening is places other than the meaning of work. Yet those very same people probably have not fundamentally improved their dialogue or communication in the very heart of where they live.

    They probably still do not know who their neighbors are but are quite willing to share their personal world outwards. Yet we instinctively know something is amiss, that we need to restore our foundation. I don't write this in any frame of logic or as an argument, I write this instinctively - seeking to change my own life.

    Loyalty as I view it, dissipates with divergence and increases with convergence. If we keep going out into the world what does long-term loyalty bind itself to? Even the word religion means "binding" and I am not here to promote a new religion or a new ideology. We have plenty of religion but to what end?

    I am writing these thoughts for convergent purposes while I recognize that the world I live is globalizing i.e. it is becoming more divergent. Travel into space is divergent also - these things will happen with or without me. The astronaut however will always be convergent, she/he is dependent on his home team and her/his core support - that family called mission control.

    Divergence itself has great purpose but IMHO most of them are not based on loyalty factors but actually encourage disloyalty (otherwise we cannot cross the boundaries we need to cross). There is no longer any one right way of living a life but there has always been a personal foundation.

    I can't speak to the "us" or "we" of building a better future. Our collective future IMHO is our ability to be loyal to our core and the workplace does not cease to be separate from that core. The long-term value of loyalty is then fully dependent on who and where meaning is created.

    A village of old was a right old gossipy place, it can still be a highly dysfunctional environment, but the village of the new century is one which needs to define what loyalty is in terms of intelligence rather than habitual tribal rituals. We need to restore the good things we lost rather than perpetuate the thoughtless things.

    The global village dissipates because it is divergent but the intelligent village is fully within our powers of imagination to create. A key part of that power of imagination IMHO is my own personal discovery and what it is I am loyal to versus what it is I have been told I must be loyal to. One is a freedom, the other is a conditioned response.

    I don't want my personal discovery to be the defacto standard for someone else's thinking. IMHO we must test truth at its core of our own being rather than submerge the rest of civilization in a flood of "truth", especially when we know that our society has been based on a mythological basis and will continue to do so. The only place we find out what is real is where we personally stand, truth like loyalty dissipates with divergence. So I am beginning to learn for myself how to converge, diverge and as a consequence re-emerge.

    I would like to think that this is called "emergence" but emergence is a meaningless word and has to be meaningless otherwise there is no surprise factor or uncertainty in it and then it really isn't emergence. The key for me in terms of loyalty is where meaning is happening.

    For me, it is within our families, our core group of friends and our core group work partners and how we then plug this into a the total system that is our world. This "total system" then emerges IMHO from the development of intelligent village, rather than the global village, which as Marshall McLuhan once pointed out is our failure to figure out at the most personal level "What is Going On?".

    Mark Suster's aim is to move the debate forward. That is his waving flag and that movement should be done in the name of Mark Suster. I have no war to win here but only a battle between me and my own thoughts. Where I am absolutely on the same world view as Mark is, that the long-term value of loyalty is paramount. All I have done here is make explicit what I am doing in this regard. This is not a cookie-cutter prescription, it is my thoughts, it is directed solely at me - this is what I mean by personal convergence.

    Mark Suster writes "The people that I’m closest with in life are: my family, my high-school & college friends and the people that I worked with in my startups." I say Amen to that. In a world which is divergent I can't understand the question "What is your point?". The irony of personal convergence is that the point is "meaning", the one we are responsible to create, where the first personal network is our own family, village and place of value creation.

    [Em]
  • Thanks Em, appreciate your personal thoughts here although I think you may be discounting the value of weak ties. Sometimes, a loose associate, perhaps someone you have never met in person can make a profound difference in your life with a tiny effort. We must balance our core and edges.
  • Thanks Mark (Essel).

    Mark, I have never read any of the theory around weak ties assuming that this was common sense. Today I begun reading "The Strength of Weak Ties" by Mark Granovetter and clearly see that there is far more to the concept of "weak ties" than I had possibly imagined. (I've linked it below for my future reference)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24761271/The-Strength-of-Weak-Ties-a-Network-Theory-Revisited-Mark-Granovetter

    The other great pick up from today's writing here was finding out about Andrew Warner who produces Mixergy (and of course his main blog), which is via the courtesy of having read more of gmagana's other observations.

    http://twitter.com/mixergy

    I still am deconstructing whatever flew and grew out of my mind this mornings posting, though I guess should in future limit these stream of consciousness to the outer edges of Disqus which no one ever frequents (and believe me there are presently lots of Disqus accounts I have come across that apparently no one visits). I know that isn't what you had in mind when you said balancing core and edges (and that was a great point).

    As ever I shoot first and answer my own questions later but will probably catch you sometime at Victus Spiritus, hopefully I will be that much more of a refined human being by then. I have a growing list of Disqus cerebral airports that I have yet to visit, figured if I can collate over 300 destinations, I just have to visit each site once or twice a year. Easier said than done.

    BTW I have separated by personal Twitter accounts into three formats @EmeriGent @MarkZorro and @Ovurmind - which I personally find helpful as Lists. I like what Mark Suster has put together here, I am also following him on @EmeriGent and that is my alibi why I happened to end up here :-)

    See you at another port of call or at your site on my disqus cyber travels and thanks for the input (Thanks also to Gmagana below for the Seth Godin plug, Godin is good, Jiddu Krishnamurti is an even better...)

    All the Best Mark
    [Em]
  • I hadn't read Mark Granovetter's work, I'll throw it on the growing digital pile of backlogged stuff I want to read. Thanks!

  • Response to Mark Essel:

    Mark, digital piles are the hemorrhoids of the human mind, they are apt to bleed our imagination, so I take special care not to let things build up whether that be physical material or stress hormones. The benefits of accumulation is observation but letting things build up is a blockage.

    The idea of "long-term value of loyalty" got me observing Van Gogh's workers in the field pictures this morning and in so doing came across what is said to be his last words: "La tristesse durera toujours" which apparently means that he considered that there would never be an end to sadness, it is translated at http://www.creativestorytellers.com/ as "the sadness will last forever".

    http://chrisbellinger.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/van-gogh-two-sketches/

    Van Gogh also serves as a story that exemplifies "loyalty". That he suffered because of others disloyalty including that other painter who ruined his dream of building an artist colony in Southern France, but also in terms of loyalty, which is exemplified by his brother Theo.

    Unfortunately, Theo died at an even younger age than Vincent did and probably with a terrible broken heart - so much for those who say that life and work are one and the same thing. Ideally work and life should be one and the same thing if one has been lucky to both find their calling and also lived a life of relative paradise, but Van Gogh's workers in the field paintings tell us a far different story. It is the same story that exists if we open our eyes to the mindless slavery that can still perpetuate in the modern nature of work.

    It helps me to remove the klondike mindset when thinking about the long-term value of loyalty. I am sure there is much gold in them virtual hills, but that isn't at all the journey that I have set my path towards. It just occurred to me that your initials are [Me] which is what the reversal of [Em] is meant to portray. Whether we live in a literal world or a dynamic world, what peaked my interest in this thread was the opportunity to think about the long-term value of loyalty as it applies or portends to my own life.

    No two life stories are alike even if our mind is designed to associate, cross-pollinate and/or find patterns or fill in the missing blanks (otherwise motion pictures would be viewed as thousands of still pictures rather than as an illusion of reality). However, I also wrote this because the word that triggers in me this expression called "digital piles", is also a reminder of learning to let things go, to keep things relatively tidy and to enable the imagination so that we are not lost in the avenues of others thoughts or blocked by collecting things, or worse still be collected by others (which is symptomatic of slavery attitudes of old) no matter how beautiful our collection might be :-)

    It is not what we collect that counts but how we arrange and tend to things and keep things in flow. I thought also about how I will manage my Disqus journey and I am thinking of creating a dynamic listing of a "Disqus 360", lists can be dynamic or linear, if IMHO we are focused on collecting things, we defy the very reality of nature which views both waste as a natural phenomena and renewal as reality. Of course that is the way I look at life, I can also learn much from observing collectors.

    It is ironic also that in seeing two words "digital pile" can lead to creation of a thought piles :-)

    [Em]
  • gmagana
    Work is life and life is work. You cannot separate them because they are both part of your life. Why would you want to separate them anyway? Isn't that a sign that you need a more appropriate career for the life you want to have?

    Anyway, it is a bitch to figure out sometimes. What I know you cannot do, specially if you are a consummate professional is to put your work in one drawer and the rest of your life in another. They mix whether you want them to or not. All you can do is find balance, they are not mutually exclusive.

    I think you might gain unique insight by reading Seth Godin's latest book, "Linchpin." It talks about several of the points you have in question, and is a great book overall.

    And for the purpose of this conversation, an individual that Seth calls a "linchpin" in his book would never be called a job hopper, and would be considered the most loyal of persons. Maybe more people should read it than just Emeri...
  • tblondi
    Another great discussion, Mark. Appreciate the perspective and I for one, don't think you have to apologize for anything. It is interesting however that the clarity of the discussion increased dramatically when the actual debate started. Up to then it was just your post and your opinion. We all learned a lot from the discussion. Good lesson for entrepreneurs about surrounding themselves with people who don't just agree with the boss but instead constructively discuss another viewpoint.
    Those people are usually those who trust you as the "boss" to allow open debate. Ironically aren;t those the same folks who are loyal and not job hoppers?
  • I think that loyal team members who work in a culture that tolerates dissent feel free to speak their minds. That produces the healthiest culture. I welcome dissent. I'm opinionated and as one of my team members used to say, "it takes three bullets to kill Mark Suster." He was referring to the fact that I don't fold on my opinion easily. But given data and logic I am the first to admit when I'm wrong. I think if you work somewhere that doesn't tolerate dissenting opinions it's time to think about where you should be working.
  • Mark. Great post and I’m glad to see this subject being discussed.

    I believe that loyalty is the key to being able to build the right team/product/company. And, I agree that loyalty shown, in most cases, does garner support throughout your career.

    But, to be fair, this is a two way street. And, as many people (including myself) have learned over the past decade, companies aren’t so great at reciprocating on the loyalty front. With two massive employment shake ups in the US over the past 10 years, companies haven’t walked the walk when it comes to this subject.

    Of course, lets be realistic, we’re still hovering around 10% unemployment and it has been tough on organizations as they struggle to maintain their legs. But, along they way, you have to admit, that there has been very little attention paid to the word ‘loyalty’ (in most cases) on their part.

    For me, it comes down to this: Everyone has their share of bumps along the way. And, we all have our stories. For employers and founders, it is about how realistic these stories are. And, if there’s a gut feeling about someone, then its time to do some homework. Check the references and dig deeper. As you note, “No rule is ever absolute no matter how it sounds when one writes a blog.”

    There’s no one way to go about finding the right person as we all have our methods. I just think its wrong to always ‘judge a book by its cover (or resume in this case)’ when it comes to finding that all important, next piece to the puzzle.

    Again, great post – glad this is a subject getting attention right now.
  • Thanks, Jeff. It's definitely a two-way street. I will address that in a future post.
  • gmagana
    Mark,

    I think you are completely right on all counts on this topic. Why apologize so much? If people are not ready for it as it is, you should not apologize. I mean it's not your problem, or is it?

    Job hoppers really only are a detriment to companies that need more than just assembly line-type personnel. If you are hiring immediately replaceable people then job hoppers are not a problem. Some of my fellow readers of your blog I think do not understand the difference, plus they feel threatened, plus they glossed over your repeated disclaimers that there are exceptions to all you say.

    I mean, I understand how they can feel threatened, specially if they thought they were being smart by switching jobs quickly, and now you come out saying they are undesirable for it (because I supposed they never looked at their job switching from the POV of the business owner). But really, should you apologize so much for saying what you are convinced to be true?
  • I only apologized because I truly believe that my language in the first post was a bit too inflammatory and unnecessarily so. If I would have stuck to my POV with less harsh language I think it wouldn't have clouded my argument as much. thanks for your support.
  • Wow. I can't believe all of the controversy Mark's common sense posts have made. Well, actually, on second thought I do get it. Mark's perspective is grounded from being a 2x startup entrepreneur and having fought through the hell it takes to build companies from scratch in good times and bad. You bond with your startup team in a very deep way, and without loyalty, you're toast.

    So if you haven't achieved what Mark has achieved, and if you haven't fought through the difficult times and maintained deep, long term relationships you haven't experienced the incredible lessons and other benefits that this type of loyalty, dogging it out, whatever you want to call it produces.

    The other distinction is that I doubt Mark ever thought of the "job" he had as a startup guy as a job. I know in my two startups I never did. When you're in a startup in the early stages, it's something more than a job and that's why guys like me have a visceral response when we see resumes of people hopping all over the place for short stints.

    But as Mark rightly says, there are ALWAYS exceptions-a resume can only tell you so much. But the obvious patterns Mark has highlighted are, well, obvious. Others may have some short stint exceptions, and in those cases, I encourage hiring managers to learn more-in a laid back, non-threatening tone, ask the candidate to discuss the situation candidly. Some times the candidate learned something very important from a short stint or two that spotlights their integrity for leaving a situation that was toxic.


  • Thanks, Philip. Yeah, I was a bit surprised by the reaction, too. I think I did cause some of it by choosing a tone that rubbed people the wrong way. It's clear that in this economy many people feel burned by startups and having been cut by companies that they trusted. So I can understand the frustration. I think where I should have placed more emphasis in the original post is that early in one's career a few moves are acceptable. If it builds into a long-term pattern employers WILL start to wonder.


    I appreciate your support.
  • For me at least the distinction of whether job hopping means much about someone's potential depends an awful lot about their particular circumstances. I think there are plenty of times when someone may have skipped several jobs when they are a bad hire - but at least as many where they are good ones.

    It's like dating. If you end up successfully married and happy and committed it doesn't much matter how much you dated before you met your spouse. In many cases all those other dates may have contributed a great deal to someone's ability to settle down and to be good at it.

    Sticking it out in tough times to a person or company that you believe in - especially when there are other seemingly better options out there speaks a great deal about character though. That is valuable regardless of the ultimate success of the relationship - whether it's personal or business.
  • that's true. and why if somebody job-hopped when they were young but stayed at their last employer for 4 years I can overcome my previously stated concerns.
  • I'm south european, and working in other cultures I always thought I had a bit more loyalty and related ethics, like the mafia/brotherwood kind of loyalty but without the blood :)

    Having some kind of upfront loyalty where i first give it without asking for anything back, I came to find that other people would not match that commitment which led me to feel that my loyalty was not desearved.

    Not saying this is due to specific cultures in any way, I would say it is personal and sometimes people make it circumstantial, but i guess my point is that __loyalty goes both ways__ and people who do have it feel somewhat betrayed when they don't get the same feedback.

    In cases like this, people should stay close to their principles since these are priceless
  • I worked in Southern Europe for years (in the South of France, Italy and Spain). I loved it there. And the culture is very different. I loved the value placed on relationships before rushing into transactions. On the other hand, I found it harder for outsiders to break in for this reason. On balance, it was one of the most interesting and rewarding periods of my life.
  • Same feeling just inverted :)

    You haven't tried Portugal, my home country :) Same context roughly though... (lots of people thought it was Spain a few years ago)

    And yes, inviting business contacts -specially when from abroad- into a more personal context like family dinners, weekend in the country/beach house and others instead of a business dinner is the way :-)

    I'll never forget when my grandma once hugged and kissed a business partner i had, talking to him in portuguese as if he spoke the language and as if he was just one more of the family... lol, funny and at the same time so honest, simple and... easy (?)
  • By the way, when are you taking a teaching position at UCLA's Anderson School?
  • Ha. I've been over there to do lectures 5-6 times. I go whenever invited!
  • I don't mean the occasional lecture. I bet if you taught a seminar about entrepreneurship even one quarter each year, it would sell out. To ease the workload, you could bring in guests each week. Peter Guber did it for years about entertainment. Alan Kaye did it one year and it was one of the best classes I took at Anderson.

    You and Jason have done more for tech entrepreneurship in LA than anyone else. I don't mean as a VC or angel but as mentors. For some reason "mentorship" became a bad word during the Dot-com Boom. It is good to see it coming back. I think that the logical next step for you would be to help the next generation of entrepreneurs while they are studying it. Just a thought (and easy for me to say as it's your time).

    Thanks again for this series.
  • I like your comment about sticking thru adversity. That's where a person's character is tested & when leaders rise
  • Loyalty
    But the end result of "adversity" isn't always WIN. For Mark & team, sticking through adversity made sense because his startup succeeded, thus it's easy to write in retrospect that loyalty is both admirable and a good career decision for the employee. However, that is not the case for most startups that face adversity. The facts show that most startups FAIL, not WIN. Recognizing the tipping point toward FAIL when it happens and leaving is more often the right decision, particularly for an employee rather than a founder.
  • gmagana
    ... And when most job-hoppers leave, which is why they are undesirable as employees...
  • First Guess
    But the end result of "adversity" isn't always WIN. For Mark & team, sticking through adversity made sense because his startup succeeded, thus it's easy to write in retrospect that loyalty is both admirable and a good career decision for the employee. However, that is not the case for most startups that face adversity. The facts show that most startups FAIL, not WIN. Recognizing the tipping point toward FAIL when it happens and leaving is more often the right decision, particularly for an employee rather than a founder.
  • In reality, recognizing this "tipping point" is as impossible for an employee to do as it is for an investor to "time the market". All great companies have had impossible, insurmountable, crises on the way. This is a risky business, and often times the result is not always in your hand, or even in the hands of management. You win some, and you lose some. But, if you believe in the company's market and products, then you stick with it and play it out. This is how investors make money, by taking long term positions in areas they believe in. And how employees succeed, by committing to career paths and companies they believe in. Of course, if the time comes when you no longer believe the company's vision makes sense then, no matter how well or badly it is doing, you should seek a different opportunity.
  • Bullseye comment.

    The combination of a long term position and sticking it out is weighted against the risk of not being in the top 3-4 businesses in a market when the dust settles. As founders we get a few chances in a lifetime to make a huge success and there are numerous events outside of our control. Something as simple as seed or angel funding happening a few months too late could be a critical turning point for a startup.

    From a technology standpoint seeing the patterns spiral into popularity is fascinating. What looks like smoke becomes a blazing firestorm astoundingly quickly.
  • Loyalty
    The post was about employee loyalty, not about whether founders/investors should stick with a business through adversity. Investors and founders generally make the majority of money through equity, employees generally make it through cash. Thus, employees use a totally different equation than founders/investors to measure an opportunity.
  • Loyalty goes both ways, as this post by Mark clearly displayed. He discusses his loyalty to his team as a founder and their loyalty to the startup. He goes on to describe loyalty to investors and follow on seed funding.

    In particular I was making a reply to Goldwerger.

    I'm misunderstanding your reply, or you need to reread the post.
  • Mark, I think that you make some good points and don't think that you have any reason to apologize or step back in any way. I don't know why people are taking it personally even if you group them as job hoppers and they do not. You have started a fantastic debate as you often do in this series of posts.

    You barely touched on the point of corporate loyalty. How many times have you heard an executive say "Everyone is replaceable"? I've heard it far too often. Is that a phrase that is a test to see how loyal an employee is or one that shows more about a company culture that lacks loyalty? You may counter that with enough of those experiences on a single resume, it shows a lack of judgment on the part of an employee at picking an employer but what percentage of employees are the right fit and work out the way most hiring managers want them to? The equation requires loyalty and not overselling on both sides of this table.

    I've taken this view from being an employee to a startup employer. I train in my own way which has worked. I place my employees who are ready to leave even when I know that I can still benefit from their staying with my company because I know that their careers will grow more elsewhere. I know from early on working with them which treat the business as their own. All I ask in return is that they tell me when they are ready to leave so I have warning and then I help them find their next job.

    An issue you didn't address is that there are different people not just for every job but for different stages of a company's lifecycle. I know few people whom I would want to lead a start up AND a company of 500+ employees. It usually takes different peoples with different skills. Some positions require a hired gun. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf-Amvro2SY]

    In the end, we each enter the process with our own biases starting with the resume. When you get dozens, hundreds or thousands of resumes, your job first job is to say no. When you have a handful you can worry about saying yes. @markjeffrey tweets bad resume and cover letter examples. For me, a typo is reason to ding a resume. Poor grammer (sic), TOAST!
  • David, it's true that I haven't touched on corporate loyalty. I'm saving that for another day but will talk about it. I just feel it's time to move on to another topic. re: grammar or spelling mistakes - on a resume they're a big problem. I make a lot of mistakes on my blog because I type quickly and hit publish. In blog format I value the quantity of posts vs. perfect grammar / spelling. In corporate letters I'm meticulous. In your resume - that is the single most important document to somebody looking for a job. As a result if you can't get that right I wonder how detail focused you'll be when you have to produce work at our company.
  • We agree on resumes. They are your one shot to prove that you can get it right. My "grammer (sic)" was a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out resume errors, not an attack on your writing. I ignore writing mistakes from anyone who writes as much and as well as you.

    I look forward to your post about corporate loyalty.
  • There's a lot of truth in your words. When I was an engineering manager at Yahoo, I looked at a candidate's "job bounce rate" to determine a pattern in his/her loyalty, though I accepted that it's not uncommon in the web industry to find job hoppers. But one too many jobs was certainly a red flag, and not someone I wanted on my team.

    Just to play devil's advocate for a second, I recently overheard an employee at a large defense contractor telling me how her coworker was planning on quitting, so she could rejoin in a year to get a higher salary. "That's the only way to get a big raise in our business," she told me as a matter of fact.

    I don't relate this story to say it's right or wrong, but it is a common belief out there.

    A friend of mine also read this post and thought it seemed to contradict an earlier post, Is It Time for You to Earn or Learn? The advice given seems to indicate that going for the Learn goal could mean job hopping is a good thing (emphasis mine):


    Another talented young man I recently met called to talk shop. He had an offer in NY, an offer with a well known startup in the Bay Area and an offer with a startup in LA. He also has his own company that he started 6 months ago. He’s not even 21. He wanted to know what to do. I told him that he needed to decide whether to learn or to earn. He’s young enough to do either but know why you’re doing it. I advised against the SF role because it was a bigger company and his role would be pushing paper from one side of his desk to the other. If you’re going to learn then at least go work somewhere exciting where you can really do something. If it works you can stay and grow for the next 5 years. If it doesn’t you’ll have done 3 startups by 26. And you’ll be ready to earn.


    3 startups from 20 to 26 is about 2 yrs each. That would seem like the Learn mentality could also be a job hopper mentality.

    My personal take on job hopping vs staying at a company long-term is: it depends. I think it ultimately depends on the person, the company, the industry, and the market climate. Perhaps other variables can come into play as well. This is a bias from my own experience, of course (the lifespan of my careers at my last 4 companies was: 1yr, 1yr, 1.5yr, 6yrs - it took me a while to finally find a place at which I really wanted to stay, and the 1.5yr occurred because the office shut down). But sometimes staying at a company a long time is the better choice, and sometimes leaving right away is.

    My $0.02.
  • Thanks, Mike. Valuable input. I think I've acknowledge that a few "hops" is OK as you work out the right fit. I just ask people to consider why they're hopping. If it's because you've got a bad cultural fit or don't think you'll learn / grow or have happiness working with your team - I accept that. But if it's to get 20% higher salary elsewhere that seems like a short-term trade-off that isn't always worth it.

    Re: my example of my friend who took the job at 21. What I see as different is exactly as outlined: when you're young you have the opportunity to move around a bit more - to experiment. I would still advocate staying longer but more movement is accepted at his age. That's all.
  • garydpdx
    Mark, I agree with nearly all your criteria against job hoppers, taking into account age, the economy (recession), circumstances, etc. Maybe more people should calm down and read your blog pieces thoroughly first ...

    That said, with the (hopefully passed) Great Recession, a lot of people will have endured wage stagnation or cuts at jobs that they were 'lucky to have' or be hired into new jobs at lower pay, lower rank. A lot of people are taking jobs out of necessity, for lack of an alternative. If the 'new normal' turns out to be a bit better than what is expected in a long, slow recovery then I can see some, even quite a lot of churn in the next 2-3 years. Jumping for 5% in the 'short term' will be balanced against staying for less in the same old, same old for most people with no greater expectation of security.
  • Thanks for the replies msuster & gmagana!

    Recruiting is an endlessly fascinating topic to me and I'm glad to see so much discussion coming out of this entry. I've been forwarding this entry around and hearing all kinds of interesting debates, much like the comments here. Thanks again for this thoughtful post!
  • gmagana
    Mike,

    I agree very much that in some industries (particularly commoditized goods industries) the best/only way to get a raise is to switch companies. In the scope of this talk I think the best you can ask for is for the person to switch jobs in a considerate manner. For example, not in the middle of a project, better would be right after a major effort/project has been delivered and most bugs have been worked out.

    I think this is one of those exceptions that Mark mentioned originally. If you left the job after 13 months, but you left on these good terms and you took that consideration of your employer, then you are golden. I don't want to put words into Mark's mouth, so if he wants to chime in, feel free. But I think that is the gist of this whole business of deciding who is detrimental and who is not.
  • billbing
    Since I commented on the last post a few days after it had been up, and about 110+ comments deep, please forgive me for reposting it in this thread.

    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 should 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.

    He also shows that employee productivity continues to improve over time, resulting in myriad benefits and providing a huge competitive advantage to companies that can significantly exceed industry norms.
  • thanks for the awesome link!
  • durbin
    Hi Mark, I'm interested to know whether you've worked at a startup not as a founder but as an employee. Just looking at your linkedin profile it seems like you've only been a founder but maybe I'm missing something.
  • My first real job was at Accenture (Andersen Consulting) from 91-99. I started my first company in 1999 and my second in 2005. I joined GRP in 2007. At startups I've only been a founder. That said, after the dilution I took in my first company I definitely felt more like "management" than a founder in terms of ownership.
  • davehendricks
    Hey Mark - this is not a topic that you need to retire. It will live on.

    You should have, in your first post, disclosed that you yourself had never been an employee (other than founding CEO) at a startup, or worked anywhere else other than at Accenture (where I started (Arthur Andersen) too). That was a shop that was very loyal to its employees. Very rare. More rare than you may be aware. I also worked at Oracle and jumped after 4 years to a startup. That is also a great shop that is not the norm. Most startups are not Accenture, Oracle or Salesforce.com - plain and simple.

    If you've never worked as an employee for a startup that is failing, your perspective might be slightly lacking. You make great points, but until you've worked for some venal founders (as many have), you don't have the full picture of the dark side of 'loyalty'. Do you expect an mid-level engineer or biz dev guy to go down with the ship or feed his family? You know what the last 10 years have been like, very volatile - very opportunistic - very mercenary.

    Dix's post was thoughtful too, whether readers thought he made excuses or not. This is a great 'debate' and no matter what side you're on, this is a discussion that needed to be had. I am sure you have learned as much from writing it as we have from reading your posts and the comments. Thanks for surfacing this and playing facilitator.
  • Dave,

    I take your points to heart. I know that many startup teams have burned employees. I've seen it first hand. I picked up a team from a startup where the team members were not only not paid their final salaries - they were all left carrying the can for expenses that they had incurred. Stories like that will scar people for lives. So trust me I don't take this for granted.

    I've already admitted that in a way I've over-stated the "job hopping" criteria. There is no black-and-white. The reality is that it is a judgment call. If somebody has shown capable of staying 1 or 2 places for 3+ years I consider them people who will stay for the right opportunity. If they have NEVER worked anywhere longer than 18 months and they have done this 5 or 6 times then I probably have a less favorable view. If I were introduced to them they would have a chance to give me their side of the story. In a cold stack of resumes - not so much.

    Thanks for commenting. I appreciate it.

    Mark
  • davehendricks
    You've spurred a great conversation and i think we've all benefited from it!
  • gmagana
    I don't mean to get on your case at all, but did you see Mark's statement that a "job-hopper" (as defined by Mark) is someone who has 6 jobs in 10 years or so? I mean you do not qualify for it, for starters. Also, yeah there are some awful places to work, and Mark spent the second posting in this miniseries talking about it. It just seems that the same arguments are living on through all the postings.

    Again, I am just disagreeing with you, not attacking you. You seem to be quite a competent guy, as a matter of fact. But the argument that Mark does not take into account all the awful places there are out there to work has been made since the comments to the first posting.
  • davehendricks
    Mark doesn't need your defense, he's a big boy and he posts to get feedback. To learn.

    I don't usually engage with people who post anonymously, but feel free to disagree with me and slobber all over Mark's post. After all, I have only hired several hundred people (some multiple times - are they job jumpers?) at companies ranging from 5 person startups to global Fortune 20 corporations over the course of 20 years. But you don't know that, just like most people didn't know before Mark's second post that he's never been employee #73 at a failed RSS startup like so many more people have been.

    But what do I know ?

    ;)

  • gmagana
    Jeez, you have some temper. I would not say to a perfect stranger to "slobber" over anything but then we probably have different standards anyway.

    Anyway, it's all been said, so have a good day.
  • davehendricks
    I'm sure we both have high standards about hiring strong people if we are both discussing this post. My standards extend to not seeing the world in black and white terms (job-jumpers vs non-job jumpers), and my contention that Mark's personal experience as a founder (not employee) may not necessarily give him the best perspective on this. That doesn't invalidate his post, which was *mostly* spot-on.

    He did not cover his non-startup-employee background until his comment directly above my reply. That's a pretty important part of the story, don't you agree? That has informed his worldview, which informed his post. Ergo sum.
  • Where is the loyalty from corporations?

    They can't ask for loyalty when they constantly burn others and show the results of their diseased thinking to everybody.
  • It's a fair generalization to say that corporations are disloyal with their staff - and of course, generalizations smooth over the corporations that are loyal.

    However, consider _who_ in the corporation is being [dis]loyal and why.
    Implicit in what Mark writes is the fact that when the sh!t hits the corporate fan, it's ultimately loyalty on the personal level that counts.

    I don't mean to discredit what you say - there are people out for themselves who give corporations the 'diseased thinking' reputation, though there are also good people who'll stick by you. The challenge is to know who's who!
  • Mark, I'd say keep up some of your inflammatory tone and words. You can't please everyone and it helps get your point across that is the result of your experience which few of us have.

    I agree with you about loyalty, and I'm one who has been burned before by misplacing my loyalties. As I've matured, I have become a better judge of where my loyalties should lie. But once I'm there, I'm there 100%. If only the absence of betrayal was as certain as death or taxes.
  • For the career trajectory comments, I have a question. When you were making those decisions to stick with it in the long-term, was it purely out of a belief that you were doing the right things the right way, or did you think it would help your career in the long run? Perhaps just in the way that people believe things will "work out" in a karmic sort of fashion?
  • I don't think you need to apologize, although I have been glad to see you give this complex and loaded topic a full airing.
  • Overall another great post Mark. Its always encouraging to hear of "the reward after the fight" stories. It really helps other entrepreneurs find their will to keep going, to know others did it as well.

    What you are saying makes perfect sense, and is a great closing segment to the job hoppers post. Loyalty is about time as much as it is about respect and trust. I said this over on Jason's post when he asked people what we think loyalty is, but its worth repeating. Loyalty in my personal view is the result of trusting someone out of respect over a period of time. That loyalty is always rewarded in the end of the respect is mutual.

    Sadly its very easy to be loyal to someone who turns around and screws you in the end, but more often than not the relationship is mutual and both benefit from it. From the perspective of someone as young as myself (and lacking in those long term relationships and contact networks) it can seem overwhelming at times. People who I would say I am very loyal too and who I have known "practically all my life" accounts for a lonely 5 years at most.

    I'm beginning to ramble so I will stop, but I'll say this is great advice for anyone who is contemplating the job hop or to someone like myself who is young and may not realize the value of loyalty. I'll keep it in mind in all my future ventures.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: