
Never Hire Job Hoppers. Never. They Make Terrible Employees (2010) - gedrap
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-suster-never-hire-job-hoppers-never-they-make-terrible-employees-2010-4
======
throwaway215
So hilarious. I think he's absolutely right, but I take the opposite
conclusion:

> You were recruited away three times? You aren’t loyal. The first company
> that offers you a higher check means you going to jump ship. You’re only
> about the money and yourself.” Believe me – people WILL offer you employees
> more money. Job hoppers take it.

He's caught on to something that most people are just beginning to realize.
Millennials don't give a fuck about your "vision." They will relentlessly and
ruthlessly drift to competition if they could make more money or any sort of
appreciable advantage doing so.

I'd eat my CEO if I thought it would make me a dollar. You can say you won't
hire job-hoppers, but years of corporate malfeasance and broken promises means
we're all job-hoppers now.

------
ChuckMcM
I've been in the tech industry for a while and my experience is that people
who stay longer, learn deeper, and do better over the longer term. Have I done
a long term longitudinal study over everyone I've ever worked with/for? No.

Of course people will argue that "companies screw employees so I'm just
looking out for #1, its just a job." and like all generalizations, including
this one, its wrong.

It really comes down to what value you bring to the company, if it isn't
sufficient you won't get the offer.

------
maxharris
Translation: "Never hire people who dare to leave for better opportunities.
Never. They want to be paid what they're actually worth!"

------
supercanuck
He values loyalty above all else. No harm in that. Hopefully those who are
loyal to him are paid handsomely when they could have fielded better offers,
otherwise, this guy is an asshole and a user of people.

------
NumberSix
My main objection is that technology companies appear to have very high
turnover rates. By design? Are the companies "loyal" to their employees?

Many surveys have reported extremely short average or median durations for
technology jobs, meaning 1-2 years, especially in software development.

Payscale did a survey that listed both Google and Amazon as having extremely
short durations among employees.

[http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/employee-
loyalty/least...](http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/employee-
loyalty/least-loyal-employees)

The New York Times recently published an article reporting extremely difficult
working conditions at Amazon resulting in a perhaps intentional high turnover
rate:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-
amazon-w...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-
wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html)

See also coverage of working conditions at Electronic Arts and other gaming
companies.

It is true that _some_ people are able to get jobs at technology employers and
stay for several years. Even among these, very very very few seem to make it
past ten years at a single employer.

There are those who suspect that many companies have a covert policy of hiring
young, single, mostly male employees, getting them to work large amounts of
unpaid overtime through various deceptive tactics ranging from free food to
continuous grossly unrealistic schedules and deadlines, often coupled to PR
events like trade shows intended to create a perpetual crisis atmosphere.
Inevitably and by design this burns out large numbers of people, leading to
large turnover rates and other problems.

------
nikdaheratik
What a load of lazy nonsense, it's the startup equivalent to the "never do
this" chum buckets at the bottom of penny ante media websites. There is _no_
formula for successful hires, especially in tech, especially in startups.

A "founder" who sells 6 startups at age 30 and makes a bundle off of each is a
raging success, but a potential employee who climbs the ladder and lands a
better job at 6 different companies by age 30 is "suspicious". I'm surprised
the author hasn't collapsed under the weight of the cognitive dissonance.

