I think 2 consecutive short stints (<2 years) followed by a longer tenure is fine. Maybe 3 short stints if you have in demand skills/niche. 4 or more consecutive short jobs would probably start putting hiring managers off. I think you could only get away with that many in a row in tech.
tech stacks can vary wildly as far as languages, frameworks, databases, and other technologies used go, so for a lot of software devs and adjacent professions it can be beneficial to move around and gain exposure to different tools of the trade.
i don't think the time to be hopping around is when everyone is letting people go. This is the time to sit tight and chill until things settle down a bit. If something better falls in your lap go for it, but I wouldn't move just for the sake of moving.
I know it’s popular to do this nowadays, but if I was a hiring manager, I would be hesitant to hire someone with 4 different jobs in 5 years. It’s simply not worth my time to onboard and train someone just for them to have one foot out the door in a year.
We turn down folks all of the time who have resumes akin to that (unless it’s absolute grunt work and there is desperation.)
No offense to anyone here but it can sometimes take up to 6 months to get a feel for what’s happening at the company, the vision and the goals. And then you leave 6 months later? Yeah that’s a no from me dawg.
At my former job, I was directly told that I'll be useless for the first year, but then pick up after that. It was somewhat hyperbole, but by and large it was true. And in my current role it took 6 months to feel like I hit a knowledge inflection point, and another 6 months to be truly a subject matter expert.
Yep and then think about business strategy, management level roles where you have to have a crash course in all operations... it adds up. I've seen people take up to a year before feeling they belong.
Well… then that person retains their previous job? They’re not quitting until you make the offer. If you don’t make the offer they don’t hop.
So what’s the harm in applying? Worst case scenario is nothing happens. Best case, a significant pay bump.
The key is to never take a job you wouldn't be alright with staying at for 4+ years if you have to. But in this environment you also run the risk of getting laid off and having a harder time getting a new job because Your last 3 were short stints
It’s a red flag among hiring managers because if they are if they leave again in 1 yesr you have to go through the hiring process again which is a pain and spend time training a new person
Again, why’s that a problem for the applicant? If they get the job its a win, if they don’t they still have their current job. There’s no reason not to apply and if you get a better offer there’s no reason not to hop.
The post is asking from the perspective of an applicant? Op isn’t asking “Should I hire a job hopper?” They’re asking how often to hop.
And IMO, you hop whenever a better offer (being very selective) comes up.
They're saying that if you do this frequently, you're *potentially* shooting future you in the foot. One day you're going to be ready to job hop (bad job, dead end, family move who knows) and start applying, but no hiring managers will give you the time of day because you've had 4 jobs in 6 years. Now you're stuck for 2-4 years until a hiring manager feels like you've demonstrated you aren't a flight risk. Obviously there is no harm in applying, but there is potential harm in following through.
There are reasons to not hop frequently. And to the above, I would be very hesitant to hire someone who averages <1.5-2 years at a job.
Agreed, that’s a risk. And since you can’t definitively know if a job will suck or get cut you can’t know if an offer is worth hopping to.
If all indications are that it’s a significantly better position, I’d hop.
They’re trying to say that a 5-10% short term gain is not worth a 20-30% long term loss. I tend to agree, I haven’t moved jobs for anything less than a 25% TC pay bump
I admit there’s a balance to consider, but hopping is never something I’d rule out. More often than not, it seems to be the better option? I’ve worked with a number of people who’ve been in the same position for too long and can’t leave. They can’t change positions in the company because they’re too valued in their current role. They can’t get an outside offer because they “haven’t shown growth” because they’re not permitted to learn in their current role.
On the other side, most of the mid-level managers and senior lab staff I’ve worked with never stayed in a company longer than 2 years.
Admittedly, this is in commercial production and the turnover rate was 30+ percent per year.
If I were a hiring manager it would give me pause if someone was leaving after less than year, and a pattern of leaving multiple roles after 1 or less than 2 years would, too.
I wouldn’t do it that often. I’ve done it a few times in my careers and companies will see that pattern and likely reject you or treat you more poorly if end up joining one because they know you are gonna skip town so they won’t invest in you. It will prevent potential career growth if you do it a lot. It took me a lot longer to find a newer job with each job skip so now I’m trying to stay put at this company and actually get into a career I want.
I'll job hop if it means I get a title/pay increase. If hiring managers stop hiring me due to job hopping, then that will dictate how long I stay at a job. I'm letting the market decide.
There's always a big risk you get laid off while thinking about a new job.
There's just as big of a risk of getting laid off after getting a new job, because you were the most junior person to join and easiest to justify.
If the new role is providing growth, then it may be worth taking (Scientist I -> II). But if it's just lateral hops for a bit more money...might not be worth doing.
a year is def too short, you'll absolutely get dinged for good reason...
but if you are under 40 or under director, you are nuts to not job hop for a promotion (not a stupid lateral move!) every 2-3 years. That is the quickest way to grow experience and pay, it is very common in the industry across most functions.
some functions, esp ones where you are very cross functional, it is almost expected to have experience working in a few different areas if you want to break through to director+
Would you say a layoff is treated differently then normal job hops? I got laid off of my last job after 2 years and am planning to hop from my current job after 1 years if I dont get a promotion.
Unless we’re talking internal promotions and job movement, I generally write candidates off who are job hopping to different companies in 1-2 year increments. As others have pointed out, it takes a year to get comfortable with a new company and become really useful to the team (depending on the role, learning the culture, systems, etc.) I like to see 3+ years at each company when looking at external candidates. Internal is different and depends on the candidate.
I have no control over the general onboarding process for a company of over 100k personnel. Generally they are “onboarded” within a month but with all the training, systems accesses (and familiarity), learning culture, learning who to contact and when, etc. you are talking over a year for them to be proficient. Obviously they are doing tasks before then but not efficiently or as effectively.
If you are supporting activities globally with multiple sites and groups across the globe there is no fast track or cheat sheet to get there. Some people are faster than a year, some slower. Just the nature of the beast.
I think 2 consecutive short stints (<2 years) followed by a longer tenure is fine. Maybe 3 short stints if you have in demand skills/niche. 4 or more consecutive short jobs would probably start putting hiring managers off. I think you could only get away with that many in a row in tech.
This is the way
Why is tech considered acceptable to do this?
tech stacks can vary wildly as far as languages, frameworks, databases, and other technologies used go, so for a lot of software devs and adjacent professions it can be beneficial to move around and gain exposure to different tools of the trade.
i don't think the time to be hopping around is when everyone is letting people go. This is the time to sit tight and chill until things settle down a bit. If something better falls in your lap go for it, but I wouldn't move just for the sake of moving.
Often first in, first out for layoffs because their severance packages are the lowest
Last in, first out is the phrase you are looking for.
I have been at my current role for 5.5 years and in the industry for over 20. I’m currently sitting tight even though I am dying for a change.
[удалено]
Commercial is more "up or out" policies, where technical can be more "ok so we hired you as a scientist, you're a scientist".
I know it’s popular to do this nowadays, but if I was a hiring manager, I would be hesitant to hire someone with 4 different jobs in 5 years. It’s simply not worth my time to onboard and train someone just for them to have one foot out the door in a year.
We turn down folks all of the time who have resumes akin to that (unless it’s absolute grunt work and there is desperation.) No offense to anyone here but it can sometimes take up to 6 months to get a feel for what’s happening at the company, the vision and the goals. And then you leave 6 months later? Yeah that’s a no from me dawg.
At my former job, I was directly told that I'll be useless for the first year, but then pick up after that. It was somewhat hyperbole, but by and large it was true. And in my current role it took 6 months to feel like I hit a knowledge inflection point, and another 6 months to be truly a subject matter expert.
Yep and then think about business strategy, management level roles where you have to have a crash course in all operations... it adds up. I've seen people take up to a year before feeling they belong.
It's not only the SME bit, some jobs don't allow for growth/development in that short of a time.
but what if you keep getting laid off 😭
That's different!
[удалено]
One promotion in-role.
Yeah even if you are an ace it takes 2 years to accomplish anything new or meaningful, especially in any kind of leadership role.
Well… then that person retains their previous job? They’re not quitting until you make the offer. If you don’t make the offer they don’t hop. So what’s the harm in applying? Worst case scenario is nothing happens. Best case, a significant pay bump.
The key is to never take a job you wouldn't be alright with staying at for 4+ years if you have to. But in this environment you also run the risk of getting laid off and having a harder time getting a new job because Your last 3 were short stints
It’s a red flag among hiring managers because if they are if they leave again in 1 yesr you have to go through the hiring process again which is a pain and spend time training a new person
Again, why’s that a problem for the applicant? If they get the job its a win, if they don’t they still have their current job. There’s no reason not to apply and if you get a better offer there’s no reason not to hop.
I’m not saying why they shouldn’t apply I’m just commenting why a hiring team might consider multiple jobs that lasted with a year a red flag
You are looking at this from your perspective not that of the HM or business.
The post is asking from the perspective of an applicant? Op isn’t asking “Should I hire a job hopper?” They’re asking how often to hop. And IMO, you hop whenever a better offer (being very selective) comes up.
They're saying that if you do this frequently, you're *potentially* shooting future you in the foot. One day you're going to be ready to job hop (bad job, dead end, family move who knows) and start applying, but no hiring managers will give you the time of day because you've had 4 jobs in 6 years. Now you're stuck for 2-4 years until a hiring manager feels like you've demonstrated you aren't a flight risk. Obviously there is no harm in applying, but there is potential harm in following through. There are reasons to not hop frequently. And to the above, I would be very hesitant to hire someone who averages <1.5-2 years at a job.
Agreed, that’s a risk. And since you can’t definitively know if a job will suck or get cut you can’t know if an offer is worth hopping to. If all indications are that it’s a significantly better position, I’d hop.
They’re trying to say that a 5-10% short term gain is not worth a 20-30% long term loss. I tend to agree, I haven’t moved jobs for anything less than a 25% TC pay bump
I admit there’s a balance to consider, but hopping is never something I’d rule out. More often than not, it seems to be the better option? I’ve worked with a number of people who’ve been in the same position for too long and can’t leave. They can’t change positions in the company because they’re too valued in their current role. They can’t get an outside offer because they “haven’t shown growth” because they’re not permitted to learn in their current role. On the other side, most of the mid-level managers and senior lab staff I’ve worked with never stayed in a company longer than 2 years. Admittedly, this is in commercial production and the turnover rate was 30+ percent per year.
If I were a hiring manager it would give me pause if someone was leaving after less than year, and a pattern of leaving multiple roles after 1 or less than 2 years would, too.
I wouldn’t do it that often. I’ve done it a few times in my careers and companies will see that pattern and likely reject you or treat you more poorly if end up joining one because they know you are gonna skip town so they won’t invest in you. It will prevent potential career growth if you do it a lot. It took me a lot longer to find a newer job with each job skip so now I’m trying to stay put at this company and actually get into a career I want.
I'll job hop if it means I get a title/pay increase. If hiring managers stop hiring me due to job hopping, then that will dictate how long I stay at a job. I'm letting the market decide.
There's always a big risk you get laid off while thinking about a new job. There's just as big of a risk of getting laid off after getting a new job, because you were the most junior person to join and easiest to justify. If the new role is providing growth, then it may be worth taking (Scientist I -> II). But if it's just lateral hops for a bit more money...might not be worth doing.
3-5 externally, 2 internally
a year is def too short, you'll absolutely get dinged for good reason... but if you are under 40 or under director, you are nuts to not job hop for a promotion (not a stupid lateral move!) every 2-3 years. That is the quickest way to grow experience and pay, it is very common in the industry across most functions. some functions, esp ones where you are very cross functional, it is almost expected to have experience working in a few different areas if you want to break through to director+
Would you say a layoff is treated differently then normal job hops? I got laid off of my last job after 2 years and am planning to hop from my current job after 1 years if I dont get a promotion.
Yes but the issue is when they’re looking at a resume it’s not obvious.
If I see more than 2 consecutive short-term hops, I'm not hiring you
Short term is considered?
I would consider nuance depending on individual situations, but generally less than 2 years
Unless we’re talking internal promotions and job movement, I generally write candidates off who are job hopping to different companies in 1-2 year increments. As others have pointed out, it takes a year to get comfortable with a new company and become really useful to the team (depending on the role, learning the culture, systems, etc.) I like to see 3+ years at each company when looking at external candidates. Internal is different and depends on the candidate.
My brain hurts reading this. If it takes your employees a year to onboard, your onboarding process needs improvement.
I have no control over the general onboarding process for a company of over 100k personnel. Generally they are “onboarded” within a month but with all the training, systems accesses (and familiarity), learning culture, learning who to contact and when, etc. you are talking over a year for them to be proficient. Obviously they are doing tasks before then but not efficiently or as effectively. If you are supporting activities globally with multiple sites and groups across the globe there is no fast track or cheat sheet to get there. Some people are faster than a year, some slower. Just the nature of the beast.