Hacker News Reader

Comment by steven2012 | Hacker News Reader

steven2012

The problem with this mentality is that if you move around TOO much, then people won't want to hire you because they will think, rightfully so, that you won't stick around. I routinely reject resumes where the person has 3 or more jobs of 2 years or less on their resume.

View on HN

You're missing out on a lot of talented people with that kind of prejudice against short term job terms. You have no idea the background on why people chose to move jobs so simply dismissing them on that one fact seems premature.

I disagree, and I very much disagree with the assertion that I would be missing out on "a lot" of talented people. "Talented" and "excellent contributor" are not the same thing. I would much rather put in the effort to recruit someone who is very good that will stick around for 2-3+ years and contribute versus a genius that sticks around for 12-18 months. This comes from experience.

Very short sighted mentality. It assumes that people are cogs and the measurable effect of working with someone is the amount of tangible output. Working with extremely talented developers can fundamentally change your perspective about how you should be building your system / approaching a problem that can have huge future benefits. I would rather work with a genius for 12 months than a cog for 3 years.

Are you kidding? The notion that people (even talented people) can be swapped in and out every 12 months is a far greater assumption that people are cogs.

From a co-worker perspective, yes, I'd rather work short-term with someone talented. From a managerial perspective, I'd first choose the talented employee who has demonstrated an ability to commit, then I'd choose a less talented (but with potential to improve) employee who I believe has an ability to commit, then it's roughly a tie between someone mediocre and someone talented who will likely abandon their project in the lurch. Those last two are both pretty lame options.

> I would rather work with a genius for 12 months than a cog for 3 years.

That's a false dichotomy. There's plenty of "geniuses" that will stick around for many years and plenty of "cogs" that will be gone in one.

Great point. There are people so good you're lucky to work with them for a week. Of course, a lot of times those people don't even have resumes.

If somebody joins your company and finds that it isn't a good fit, isn't it preferable for both parties that they leave?

When an employee isn't motivated, both the employee and employer lose.

Yup, I agree with you Steven.. I'm one who has worked through some hard times where most would have given up.. partially so I could build that resume that you like to see. I have 4 years with my current company and now looking. I've worked through 3 reorgs and many stressful situations.

I did this because of what you're saying. Now, when I ask hiring managers how the company is doing in their intended business cycle, it puts them on the defensive. As I followup by saying, "I ask because if extended an offer, I intend to stick around a while". They have proof I'm not BSing or a flake on the job. They love it.

I'm getting a lot of interest after only being on the job market for 1 1/2 weeks. I'm going to get hired soon.

They would probably stick around if you would promote them and give them equivalent raises of changing a job in that time frame. It's definitely a lot less work!

Many places take a few months to get integrated into the codebase, not a year.

it can also be a big red flag, people who can't stick to something for any length of time are either consistently bad at picking companies to work for, or the companies they pick find they aren't what they had hoped. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the next employer.

You can't expect people to stay around when they can get a new job every year with an at least 10% higher salary.

Was going to say exactly this.

I've stayed at jobs with an under market salary because I believed in the company/boss, but eventually can't ignore the onslaught of recruiters on LinkedIn with better paying gigs.

It seems to me this mindset comes from not being comfortable with the employees having the leverage over the employers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com