
Why Mark Suster is wrong about not hiring job hoppers - ropiku
http://www.pauldix.net/2010/04/why-mark-suster-is-wrong-about-not-hiring-job-hoppers.html
======
rhl
This reminds me of an article I came across, praising execs working with an
'assignment mentality' rather than lifetime-employment seekers:
<http://hbr.org/2001/07/the-right-way-to-be-fired/ar/1>

What's interesting in this debate is that Mark's own experience isn't where he
puts his mouth. He spent the first 8 years of his career at Accenture (which
screams failed attempt at making partner -- sorry to be harsh), but
drastically changed occupations every two years inside the firm (switching
from IT to strategy, changing countries etc.).

I really like reading Mark, so I'm afraid of overbearing my point. But his
inital blog post sounded like shamelessly getting his cake and eating it too.

He felt that such frequent career changes were the best way to prepare himself
to lead a startup someday -- why would the same trait magically become a
liability in others? Optimizing against this very behavior in job selection
signals a quite detrimental two-tiered mindset -- himself at the helm, and
employees who are there to take orders.

This is to some extent the reality of capitalism, but it isn't admirable
leadership, nor a good way to generate innovation, and certainly not the best
way to inspire people to stick on a sinking ship while the rats drown away. As
the OP said - money can't buy you love... :)

Contrast this with Yelp, Aardvark and the second-generation breed of
entrepreneurs coming out of the PayPal and Google mafias.

~~~
kevbin
The distinction between tenured and assignment mentalities made in the HBR
article is vital: before offering or accepting a position, make sure you
understand the other's understanding of the relationship sought and the nature
of the work. Distinguish between project-oriented and task-oriented work and
act accordingly. Project-oriented positions have natural life-cycles with
obvious times to conclude the relationship and move on (e.g., product
delivery).

Finding people with an earnest, project-oriented mentality is hard. A lot of
people believe or want to believe they are project-oriented, but are really
case-workers, and vice-versa. A good portion of people aren't project- or
task- oriented, they're people-oriented and will conform to a project- or
case-oriented environment to the extent that it fosters good inter-personal
relations.

A small fraction of people are entirely self-oriented: they'll do whatever is
necessary to build their self-esteem and satisfy their will to power. They're
cancers. One is enough to destroy the team. Filtering-out these bad seeds is
the hardest and most important skill a hiring manager (or potential recruit)
can develop. Mr. Suster's post isn't particularly helpful in identifying these
most toxic individuals: they bind tightly to their hosts and stick through the
disease they create, gaining greater responsibilities and better titles.

------
hxa7241
Salary is priced by the market, and that requires regular testing. Saying you
don't want to hire regular job-changers is saying you don't want a functioning
market. That, of course, is just what one would expect from companies who
don't want to pay people what they are worth. Talk of 'loyalty' is effectively
propaganda.

~~~
rikthevik
I've been asked for loyalty from companies many more times than I've ever been
shown any. It's pretty rare that a company really sticks by their employees.

For the younger generations, after watching their parents work 20+ years at
the same organization and receive a cheap watch, they have no illusions about
who will be providing the loyalty and who will be receiving it.

~~~
gigantosaurus
"Loyalty" is staying together and providing work or benefits even when it is
financially a bad move. I've never in my life seen a company that is loyal to
its employees.

Even not firing people in recession times, providing four monitors or free
massages and lunches are not loyalty if they make workers more productive or
attract better talent. It would be loyalty only when these actions cost the
company much more than they benefit it, as a gift to the employees out of
sheer good will.

~~~
billswift
Part of a comment I left on the HN thread discussing Suster's post was "It was
most often used when a builder had materials or a little cash available to
avoid laying off good workers when there wasn't a contract job available."
About builders building houses on-spec to keep together their core workers.

------
raganwald
Cogent: _"If you're a job hopper that will translate to how you view
entrepreneurship." This is so off the mark it hurts my brain. Let me explain
why._

 _As an entrepreneur there is one benefit that ranks above all others.
Stability and a big paycheck definitely aren't it. It's a sense of ownership.
It's a sense of owning your own destiny. I've talked to a bunch of other
entrepreneurs and they share that feeling._

 _If you ask job hoppers why they left some of their jobs the story will be
the opposite. They left because they weren't given enough ownership. They
weren't included in vital decision making processes. When you have the ability
to improve your workplace, you have no reason to hop jobs._

 _Most jobs don't actually give their employees this chance. They're filled
with bureaucracy and ridiculous power struggles. That's exactly the opposite
of the startup and entrepreneurship experience._

This really resonated with me. The most frustrating jobs for me, the ones that
ended in me leaping for my life or being defenestrated, were the ones where I
was under extreme pressure to deliver, but the schedule and spec were subject
to capricious, unpredictable shifts out of my control. The ones where I had
little say in the composition of my team or the methods we used to deliver
results.

Ultimately, accountability for the outcome without the authority to manage the
effort is about as frustrating as life can get.

~~~
blowmage
Agreed. I gave two week's notice earlier this week. This is the first time I
haven't lasted two years at a company, so I am feeling a bit like a job
hopper. But the reasons I'm leaving are very much about accountability without
authority.

------
3pt14159
While I empathize with employers that loose good people quickly (< 2 years) I
have the following thought: I own my own life. I don't have to stay in Toronto
if I don't want to. I don't have to continue to take bullshit for a cheque. I
can go off and become a resort hand in Tiji if I wanted to, this is Canada for
goodness sake. I am FREE.

Unless I took a signing bonus, both the employer and myself put a lot of
effort into bringing me on board. I don't remember getting a cheque for all
the interviews I've gone to.

Suster can go ahead and self select for stayers, this is capitalism after all,
but he is going to lose out at the margin. Someone can actually get a ton of
work done in two years and really and the 10 year employees I've met are
rarely rockstars in their field.

~~~
nearestneighbor
> I don't remember getting a cheque for all the interviews I've gone to.

I'm wondering if anyone ("rockstars", presumably) demanded that job interviews
be treated as temp consulting gigs that need to be paid for.

~~~
lsc
As an employer without a lot of credibility, I have been known to pay for
interviews. (Now, usually these were interviews where I asked for work to get
done, but those are the best kind of interviews, no?)

I don't understand why more places don't pay for interviews; it seems to make
a lot of sense all around; I mean, this idea that a recruit will sacrifice the
better part of a day to each potential employer speaks to a larger power
imbalance between the two than I think exists, at least at the higher end.

~~~
rapind
I totaly agree with this. Instead of wasting time building generalizing
filters take the ones you feel good about on as contractors first. Get a feel
for their competency and whether they fit your environment before you buy the
cow!

Anything else just seems so ineficient and risky at least when it comes to
programmers. Think long term.

------
msuster
Paul, I think you make a compelling counter-argument. Thank you for moving the
debate forward. I have written my own follow on posting here:
<http://bothsid.es/62o> that referenced your blog posting

~~~
strlen
Hi Mark,

Your follow piece is very helpful.

> " If I’m looking at a stack of resumes and have to quickly whittle them down
> I usually eliminate resumes where people switched too many times and didn’t
> have a single place that they stayed for 3+ years "

Is a lot more reasonable than the original title (when I see it with people),
especially when applied to those ten or fifteen years into their current
career (edit: originally I said "30+", but then I realized age is an illegal
question and that there may be people who switched careers at a later age
e.g., by going back to college for a CS degree at 25).

> Again, this is totally fine. I recommend to people that you put on your
> resume the reason that you changed jobs.

It would make sense to do this for 6 month stints, but not for 18-36 month
ones. One reason is that this question is already asked on most employment
applications. It can be confirmed through a reference check (I am still
surprised when companies don't do this prior to making an offer). Having
reasons stated all over the resume can be perceived as excuses and as bad
mouthing (in public, given that the resume is read by many and may be publicly
posted) former employers (e.g., if one put down "insufficient challenge" or
"inadequate compensation").

When hiring engineers, resume screening should be done by engineers (or at
worst, engineering PMs). I know they will hate it, but remind them that they
will hate working with bozos a lot more.

I can find a lot better heuristics: do they just list keywords, are there
obviously technically inaccurate things, are descriptions full of "wank words"
vs. concrete, measurable, achievements. Asking candidates to submit an answer
to a _simple_ randomly chosen question along with the resume (e.g., "in C
what's wrong with this code: int* foo (void) { int n = 3; return &n; }",
posting puzzles (like Facebook does) or doing a "fizz buzz" test over Etherpad
are much simpler filters.

If there are red flags on the resume (and I agree that lack of 3+ year stays
ten years after the person has graduated college is a red flag), the place to
address them is either right before an in-person interview (after a phone
screen) or right after (before making an offer). It's the role of the hiring
manager, team technical lead and company HR to do this.

As an engineer conducting an interview or a phone screen, I already have a
tough issue on my hand: give a binary answer after only forty five minutes
with the person; time spent asking about their life's story (other than asking
them about specific projects) is better spent finding information that will
help me tell me whether they're technical and cultural (in terms of their
ability to communicate, passion for software engineering/computer science,
etc...) fit for the position or not.

------
strebler
When I was a more naive manager (and employer), I would have agreed with
Suster's arguments.

But the startup world is simply not a "stable" place, for either party.
There's always a tradeoff; my most stable/non-hopping friends work for the
government doing fairly mind-numbing things. Those aren't the employees your
startup is looking for.

------
ivenkys
This is a commercial transaction with all that entails.

If you as an employer are any good - you will have the best people wanting to
join you and if you are not , then well , it is going to be a revolving door.

The best people will always have more offers on the table.

~~~
j_baker
I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of the best programmers are
_abysmal_ interviewees. So I would suggest that there are a ton of briliant
programmers out there with jobs that are well below their level.

~~~
ivenkys
True , but then let the code talk , in this day and age of github and other
social coding sites - show them what you got and if the employer has any sense
he will hire you.

~~~
j_baker
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Having good code on github will get
you an interview, but it won't make up for a bad one.

~~~
ivenkys
If an employer overlooks good code and instead places more emphasis on an
amorphous process like an interview which has plenty of false-negatives and
positives , then i would argue against working for such an employer.

They have a broken recruitment process.

~~~
dagw
I know a few people whom I consider amazing programmers, but that I'd never
hire and feel very dubious to have as colleagues due to their personality and
how they act. There are very few jobs (if any) where all that counts is the
quality of what you put up on github.

~~~
ivenkys
Fair enough, but i never said hire programmers based "only" on their code in
github. The assumption here is that certain programmers do not do "technical"
interviews well and they can therefore point to their code as proof of their
technical competency. If their personality is broken well - that's a
completely different problem and i don't know the solution to it. Either way,
i think this particular strain of discussion is in someways orthogonal to the
main point of the article.

------
abalashov
Hmm. I changed jobs 6 times (5 companies) in 3 1/2 years, which averages to a
job change every 6 months. Longest stint I had was about a year. As far as I
can tell, I have not been noticeably penalised for it in my professional life.

It's definitely the fastest way to increase one's income, and you can't blame
people for doing that. My first job was doing technical support (first full,
then part-time) at $8.50/hr, and the subsequent 5 job changes were simply
progressions to a very modest mid-level IT salary in the $50-$70k range. I
don't think that's ridiculous.

~~~
alain94040
Your case is justified because you seem to be qualified for something better
than what your starting job was. So job hopping made sense for you.

As a hiring manager, I would not hire someone who has been job hopping _for
the same position_. Think of it as a twist on the Peter Principle.

~~~
abalashov
Fair enough, but, it seems to me that it is rarely the case that two positions
at two different companies in our field are truly _the same_ , even if the
title is the same and/or they draw on similar skill sets.

My jobs were all in different subspecialisations of technology, but there is a
certain identifiable sameness that unites all of them, and especially unites
the first three (ISP and SMB-oriented IT consulting work) with the last three
(VoIP & TDM telecommunications).

------
ccc3
Excellent deconstruction of Mark's post. I'd add one point:

I thought that Mark's post was valuable in understanding the perspective of
some hiring managers or investors since inevitably a few of those people will
be looking at my resume. But I was not convinced that Mark's hiring filter was
the correct approach to hiring. As an entrepreneur you're the underdog and
need to find ways to do more with less. If all the big name companies are
afraid of job hoppers, then you should be looking even harder at job hoppers.
Your best chance at finding that diamond-in-the-rough employee is to take a
closer look at the applicants that were never really evaluated at other
companies because they were "caught by the filter."

------
stevenbrianhall
According to the definition outlined in the article, I would be considered a
"hopper". I've been gone between full-time freelancing and being a senior
employee in 3 start-ups over the last 5 years.

Looking just at my employment history at face-value, you could determine
(taking the article's definition of dedication and commitment) that I was not
truly dedicated to the long-term success of the companies I've been involved
in.

The real story, of course, is that there's a lot more beneath the surface.
Instead of blowing me off, ask me about the extent of my dedication to each
company. I'm absolutely convinced that I've sacrificed, failed, and
subsequently learned more in 5 years of "hopping" than the majority of
"dedicated" employees who spend the same amount of time in a single job.

------
apower
When GE has a policy of firing 10% of the employee every year, why do you
think employee should stay loyal?

------
ihunter
I think the point of both sides of the argument is this: Don't look for a job,
go start your own damn company.

~~~
cedsav
and unless you plan on working alone, you'll have to hire people. You can't
hire people the same way you talk yourself into entrepreneurship. They're not
going to be co-founders, they won't have a great upside, they're going to be
paid a salary to do a job for you. Figuring out how to hire the right people
is probably harder than anything else I've done.

~~~
mmt
>They're not going to be co-founders, they won't have a great upside, they're
going to be paid a salary to do a job for you.

This is a point that I think most (especially first time) founders would do
well to keep in mind when thinking about loyalty or even overall commitment of
employees.

As an employee with 1% or less of the company in options and a normal if not
below market salary, I simply don't have the upside incentive to go "above and
beyond." Combined with the situation of responsibility (handling outages and
other emergencies) without authority (advice on major infrastructure changes
ignored or delayed), my loyalty or commitment haven't been earned.

~~~
lsc
I think it is something I think all employers would do well to keep in mind.
But especially startups, because as you said, you are almost always getting
paid below market rates. And, on top of that, it's a rather unstable job; I
mean, if the company goes under, you get fired, right?

The thing is, when you are a startup, you /don't need/ people who want to
stick around for 5 years. In 5 years, you will be much bigger, or dead. Either
way, the employees you need 5 years from now will be /completely different/
from the employees you need now.

As a startup, you want ambitious people; the sort who hop from job to job to
increase their salary and to get more interesting projects. You want someone
who is relatively bright but inexperienced who really wants to gain
experience. There are people who require constant change, and those people do
really, really well at startups, and not so well at large corporations. Often,
those people are willing to work for less money in exchange for letting them
work in things they are not qualified to work on, and nearly always those
people are willing to trade away stability, which is important, because as a
startup, you can't offer stability.

------
helwr
Mark is probably right - its hard to manage the entrepreneur types.

There is an interesting treatise called "Exit, Voce and Loyalty" by
A.Hirschman that talks about the reasons for withdrawal from a relationship,
be it employer-employee, or state-citizen interaction. I think Paul's reasons
for 'job hopping' fit into the Exit camp, withdrawing due to either inability
to change things or unwillingness to confront the system in a free market with
plenty of exit options.

highly recommended: [http://www.amazon.com/Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Responses-
Organizat...](http://www.amazon.com/Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Responses-
Organizations/dp/0674276604)

------
jmtame
has anyone looked at this through the eyes of the engineer? they are clearly
not sold into your vision if they're job hopping--how is this the engineer's
fault? your startup can only keep top-notch people as long as it's committed
to changing the world. the smartest people i know want to work on hard
problems that impact a lot of people. if you can't fulfill that in an
engineer, what incentive do they have to stay?

------
trevelyan
Relax guys. I wouldn't hire Mark Suster either, but it's nice that he's
helping startups in LA.

------
evo_9
Nice counterpoint article.

The thing not mentioned in either posting - what about guys like me that
take/prefer contract work? When you are an indie developer trying to go your
own way you inevetible take a lot of of short-term contract work to keep
yourself floating.

~~~
gte910h
You're scary and dangerous to bigger companies. They know you know how to
leave and survive at any time, and expect you to get tired of the crazy
schedules, overtime, and all that at any time. (At least I've known managers
who thought that about your type).

~~~
evo_9
Yep - exactly.

Probably why I'm so startup oriented. Of my fulltime jobs most are startups.
Just prefer if i'm going to commit then I'd rather comit to a company I can
have the greatest impact at and where the risks/rewards are highest. I'm
'built' for startups, just how my psyche works.

------
extension
After a little over a decade working in the software industry, I would put the
bozo rate for employers at about 9/10. Though I don't have much direct
experience hiring developers, I get the impression that they have roughly the
same spread. This industry is like the music industry or Hollywood: a few gems
in a sea of nobodies, all looking for a piece of the action. If you're a gem
but not in the loop, it could take while to be discovered.

A developer who has changed jobs every year could be a bozo themselves, or
they could be a star talent who hasn't been lucky enough to find an equally
valuable employer. If it's loyalty you want, find one of the latter and give
them a good working experience. They will be very _very_ grateful.

------
physicsnick
Alex talked about something similar a while ago on TheDailyWTF. I haven't seen
anyone post this link in these various discussions yet, so I'll drop it here:

[http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-
Tur...](http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Turnover-
Crisis.aspx)

He writes about how IT turnover is a good thing, and suggests that job hoppers
are likely to be more talented. Interesting stuff.

(Also, I tried posting this on the linked article instead of here, but it kept
rejecting my post, even when I took out the link. No idea what's going on
there.)

------
ulrich
As much as I understand the developers point of view on this, it is different
as an entrepreneur. For a startup it is vital to not have half of your
companys knowledge walk out the door. This article just says that there are
valid reasons why job hoppers can be good employees. Mark Suster doesn't say
that you should never change your job, nor does he deny young people to have
some more tries for orienatation.

~~~
zedshaw
In a knowledge worker economy the workers own the means of production. In
effect, the factory walks out the door when they do. The only way to prevent
it is to make sure the knowledge is shared very well among all workers, no one
person is a gatekeeper, code is well maintained and high quality, and firing
anyone who purposefully tries to "own" the knowledge before they can own it.
That's the only way I've found to make sure the factory stays at your company.

It also means that you have to now treat programmers as the "talent" and not
the "workers". Think movie star not factory worker and you'll do a lot better.
It may seem retarded, but if you want smart creative people to work for you
then treat them like smart creative people. Not like a rivet puncher at a
factory.

~~~
extension
This can't be emphasized enough. It's not enough that you have some technical
wizard who is making everything happen at your startup. You have to make sure
that the magic becomes a permanent asset, or you are going to get knocked back
to the starting line when mr wizard leaves or when it's time to grow the team.

How to do this depends on the particular kind of work being done, but
generally speaking you want maintainable code with lots of tests, and records
of the valuable knowledge gained in the process.

It's not easy to get this out of most developers, particularly if you are not
a developer yourself. If you ignore it, chances are very good it's not being
done at all.

------
dalore
I look like a job hopper on my CV, so I have to explain that startups go bust.

------
nickpinkston
It seems like Paul is only looking at one side of the table: the one to be
hired. Certainty, we're all able to switch to better opportunities, but the
long term signaling effect says you're not going to be their in tough times.
Persistence is key in startups, so I can see why he'd be anxious - as would I.

~~~
kanwisher
I think loyalty is something earned. I think we should model jobs more like
relationships, value has to be given on each side of the equation. If your not
treating the girl well, she leaves. You don't go in saying, baby if you date
me you have to be here for the next 2 years even if I start beating you.

 _disclaimer_ I'm a Job hopper ;)

~~~
ulrich
But a girl who has been changing boyfriends like her clothes in the past is
more likely to do so in the future. Maybe that's because she doesn't fullfill
her side of the equation in general.

~~~
mattm
Wouldn't it still be worth it to be with a great girl for only a few months?

~~~
gigantosaurus
I've heard similar advice about hiring people who are obviously over-qualified
and will probably leave in 6 months. You have to use them not as workers, but
as trainers and inspiration beacons for the rest of the team.

~~~
varjag
The beacon that leaves after a few months? I don't know what kind of
inspiration that would provide.

------
bartl
i laughed at this line:

>As the old saying goes: money can't buy you love, but it can buy you
prostitutes

~~~
gfodor
I also liked "if you want loyalty without earning it, hire a dog."

Working at a job right now that has several in-house dogs wandering around the
office all day, it makes me wonder if they have 401k packages and non-
disclosure agreements or not.

------
earl
The reason Mark is an asshole is that he's trying to create / exploit cultural
norms to prevent employees acting in their own self interest. Of course it
would be optimal (for the employer) to have employees that never leave, but
the vast majority of employers treat their employees fairly poorly. Any social
bonds such as employers keeping employees around through tight times have long
since been shattered since employers have made it abundantly clear they look
out only for themselves. Expecting employees to do differently makes you a
dick.

Even the basics -- employers expect two weeks after you resign to help
transition your responsibilities -- are asymmetric: how many employers would
give you an extra two weeks of wages if they fired you to help tide you over
until the next job?

~~~
ccc3
Asshole? Dick? What's the point of that language. Mark's free to hire (or
invest) however he wants and you're free to not work with him. Even though I
have my disagreements, I found it very useful to hear Mark's perspective on
hiring. There are a lot of people who share his philosophy and you're better
off understanding it.

On the asymmetry of loyalty, it's just basic economic incentives. An
individual has to be much more concerned about what their former employer says
about them than a company does about what a single former employee says. It
may not be perfectly 'fair,' but that's just the way the world works.

~~~
mattm
Agreed. I would rather have him come out and say it rather than him keep quiet
about it and just doing it his way anyways.

------
johnrob
I definitely wouldn't hire a job hopper who is dumb enough to not somehow
cover that up on his resmue...

~~~
erlanger
If that is how you evaluate, you will end up with an organization of snakes.

