

Why Good People Leave Good Jobs - Smudge
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_08_17/caredit.a1200093

======
misiti3780
"I see a lot of CVs. For years, I’ve noticed that some people—a lot of people,
actually—don't stay very long at their first jobs. They may accept the job
intending to retire there in 30 or 40 years, but instead they leave quickly,
adding an early blemish to their CVs."

Leaving your job is considered an early blemish? Give me a break

~~~
tikhonj
I think it's very different in other fields. Software developers (especially
in the Bay Area) seem to switch jobs fairly often and it's definitely an
accepted practice. Other fields expect you to keep a job for a far longer
time.

~~~
achompas
I'll go even further and say it also differs by economic climate.

Take today's environment. Companies can't fault people for leaving their first
job when they might've landed it only after several months of searching.
Chances are that job isn't a good fit for the candidate, but if you're a new
grad you have to pay those loans somehow.

------
DigitalSea
The problem with most workplaces is that they are so big one or more persons
efforts go unnoticed. I worked at a fairly large media conglomerate a while
back and there were 4 people in the front-end development team, 3 people in
the systems administrators team and 4 people in the backend development team.
The issue with the front-end team I was in was that the guy who had been there
the longest and had reached a point where he would delegate most of the work
to people did nothing but got all of the credit. Occasionally some of us
"other" devs would get a collective thank you, but this one developer who
wasn't very good and had been there for 4 years prior got the special
treatment and it caused the entire team to continuously reshuffle and it
continues to do so long after I've been there (so I hear).

There are two things employers need to do to keep good workers: pay them what
they're worth, if they're doing a great job and contributing to the business
pay them for their dedication and hard-work, make their life easier
(especially if they have a mortgage and family to feed). And lastly, make your
employees feel trusted and valued. It's not always about money, but it is 50%
of the total equation that equals a happy employee.

------
doktrin
_a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you. Five to 7 years at a
company is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when
accepting a new job._

Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little
conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first
position, and 1.5 into my second.

~~~
maximilianburke
I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2
year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of
business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck.

If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would
make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list.

If they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then
I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them
responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored
and leaving.

As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full
time employment. If you (the candidate, in general) leave before then without
extenuating circumstances I would probably skip over your resume the next time
it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you
were.

Searching for candidates is an expensive, time-consuming process, I don't want
to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill a position that I
recently filled.

~~~
sanxiyn
Thanks. An interesting perspective from a manager.

I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching
for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially
to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I
mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.

~~~
maximilianburke
There are two reasons. The first is that presumably I passed on all the other
candidates to go with my selection for a reason. Now that the best candidate
for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit
those who I passed over.

The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles
so the group is going to be a man down until a new person is hired.

------
lkrubner
"you’ll earn the job-hopper label"

What? In the year 2012? I assume this is being written about the USA? His
comment seems to come straight out of the 1980s. I remember my parents telling
me stuff like this when I was a kid. But what is the actual reality in 2012?
Many companies are afraid to hire and ask that people work some sort of trial
period. If you do programming, most companies in New York will offer you a 90
day contract, and see if you work out. If you want to get into editorial work,
a lot of magazines are insisting that you work an internship first.

The unwillingness of companies to commit to people means it is only fair if
people are unwilling to commit to companies.

Besides all that, during the last 12 years I have not worked anywhere
continuously for more than 18 months. I'm still flooded with offers. I suppose
working for small, new firms is different than working from large ones, but
I've worked for some large ones as well.

I do not doubt that there are still some large, conservative organizations in
the USA that still are worried about "job hoppers" but clearly the era where
this was a predominate concern is now several decades in the past.

------
jonathanconway
This is complete rubbish. Take a look at my LinkedIn profile:
linkedin.com/in/jonathanconway.

Virtually nothing but 3/7/12-month stints.

I'm now making more money (and having more fun!) than ever before in my
career!

The key is to keep your skills fresh and relevant to the job market, have an
excellent C.V. and interview well.

Unfortunately a lot of people take on the mindset of "employees"/serfs and
don't realize that every individual is a mini-business, which can benefit and
profit from doing excellent work and marketing properly.

I'm going to keep up my contracting gig for as long as I can, because this is
what I love doing, and I don't ever intend to "belong" to any employer.

------
Falling3
Sigh... I think my job hits just about all of them. Although I think that
would disqualify it from being a "good job".

Follow up needs to be "Why Good People Stay at Bad Jobs".

~~~
misiti3780
agree

------
michaelochurch
OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70
hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we
can fire them.

People should leave jobs as soon as they realize they aren't going to learn or
grow where they are. This can happen after 8 years, or 3 months. Companies
don't promise to employ people for 3 years regardless of whether they are any
good, so why should an employee be expected to pay dues in a job that's
obviously not going to lead anywhere?

The "job hopper" stigma is perpetuated by people who only want the side of "at
will" that benefits them.

I will say that most 22-year-olds need to be better at figuring out when a job
is worth leaving, because I've seen error on both sides. Everyone gets grunt
work when they start out, but there are chef's apprentices (who still get
grunt work, but are being primed for something better) and there are
dishwashers, and it's important to figure out, in an entry-level job, which of
these you are. That's a separate matter altogether. I've known a few job
hoppers and they're not all people with bad judgment.

That said, people should generally go into jobs with the intention and hope of
being there for at least 2 years, but I think that goes without saying.

~~~
achompas
Hey Mike! Hope you're doing well.

 _Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of
our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them._

I think you're misrepresenting OP's argument here. He's arguing that younger
people with repeated job jumps may raise flags at prospective employers.

I tend to agree with OP, too. Jumping between gigs can be a problem,
especially for people with little experience, since shorter job stints mean
you don't get a chance to work with multiple people in the company or work on
increasingly complex projects. Both can be problematic from a career
development point of view.

I agree with your point about young 20-somethings, though: most probably don't
know how to evaluate offers -- compensation, benefits, culture, and their
bosses -- well enough when they graduate. I know I didn't.

~~~
michaelochurch
Hey! How are you doing? I just sent you an email. Are you still at the same
company?

I know what the OP's saying, and I'm probably exaggerating my normal reaction.
I just feel like this idea that "job hoppers" are the problem rather than a
symptom is a bit ridiculous. I don't know anyone who goes into a job intending
to bolt after 1 year.

I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in
almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion)
than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables
based on the average.

I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using
external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the
official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead
attached.

~~~
vonmoltke
_I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in
almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion)
than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables
based on the average._

That was the driving reason I ultimately left my first company. I had success
in the first several years either getting promoted or new internal positions,
but hit a wall about 3 years ago in a position that slowly made me miserable.
I got negative progress in my efforts to find another internal position.[1]

 _I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using
external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the
official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead
attached._

I never did that, but I thought about it a couple times.

[1] I was basically labelled "disloyal" for wanting to find a new position.

------
jotux
>a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you

At my last job I helped in the process of interviewing for an embedded USB
developer position. It was extremely difficult to find people with that
expertise. I remember one candidate in particular had 13 jobs over a 20 year
career with the most time spent at one company being just under five years.
When we all gathered at the end of the day to discuss the candidate I brought
this up and my manager and he admitted he noticed this but filling the
position was so difficult he didn't care. My takeaway from this was if you
have a sought-after skill no one cares how long you stayed at previous jobs.

------
aledalgrande
I don't think the author mentioned personal reasons.

There are definitely important reasons to leave a good job that are not
related to the job at all.

We still have personal lives.

------
diego
Why is that question interesting? To me, it's like asking why water is wet.
"Good people" leave "good jobs" for an unimaginably large array of reasons.
I've left good jobs to go back to school, to start a company, to take time
off, because I was bored, etc.

------
sanxiyn
I guess other things being equal, employers would prefer employees who they
think will stay with them longer. I mean I would if I were an employer. But
other things are not equal, and I am not sure how important this consideration
is.

------
lukejduncan
Ive heard people making hiring decisions at various companies make the
statement "oh, this guys been at company X for 5 years and didn't move around
even in the company? He's probably not any good"

Moral of the story, who cares what's the "right" amount of time to be at a
job. Enjoy what you do, do it well, and it will reflect on you accordingly.

------
mikeash
Title seems misleading. The actual reasons listed are more like, why people
leave bad jobs.

~~~
001sky
I think the sub-text is why they leave "jobs that look good on paper".

"When does a high-status / high-pay position become a 'bad job'?"

Its hard to make a blanket statemnet. The value of the article is it
dimensionalizes the problem a bit.

------
jamierothfeder
One benefit of having many different jobs is that you meet a lot of awesome
people in your field. And if you actually are good, then these ex-colleagues
will probably invite you to new opportunities when they hop themselves.

