That's an interesting perspective. I wonder if the screening rejections/silence have anything to do with the history seen on the resumes; eg, 10 yrs of experience in 1 to 2 year stints, vs having worked in only two orgs but for say 4 and 6 years.
I've always heard that the best strategy to raise your salary is to change jobs every couple of years. Could this be the flip-side of that?
Purely from an economics point of view, yes job hopping tends to net you larger pay raises and promotions.
I think the flip side is that you won't build a reputation with 1 year stints at 10 companies. I currently work with a VP of product who's only stayed max 1 year at their last 6 companies, and I can feel the lack of engagement and ownership since the day they joined. So I definitely resonate with GP's point.
What makes everything worse is that at the end of the day, you'll never get straight feedback from someone on why they left so soon. Laying bare all the issues serves little purpose when you're leaving a company, so I end up thinking most companies have very skewed views of retention and hiring. It's not an open conversation since both parties have selfish interests.
Everyone needs to think for themselves what they're maximizing for. For me, I feel like my reputation is worth way more than any single job, so I try to avoid jumping around too much.
Yes change jobs every few years to raise salary and gain breadth. But it is crucial, nay critical, that at some point you stay somewhere for 4 years or more.
Nothing teaches you software architecture like dealing with your own crap from 3+ years ago. You cannot call yourself an experienced engineer if you haven’t done this.
When I was hiring yes it absolutely was something I looked at. If a candidate had only 1-2 year stints at a bunch of places, why would I expect my experience with them to be any different?
And yes, it there is definitely a mindset that jumping companies frequently is the best path to higher salary. There is even some truth to that, people who don't know you may value perceived potential higher than the company that knows you well. That said, if you do it too much you do risk ending up in the "jumps ship too frequently" pool and you'll start to be overlooked.
I wasn't looking for 5-10 years from an employee, I don't think that's realistic today. But somewhere in 2-4 for sure. Jumping after 4 years is pretty common as it's a frequent vesting cliff, even at large companies.
Sure. If I look at a resume with 1-2 year stints, I ask myself if it's OK if this person leaves after a couple of years. There was one case where a hiring committee I was on basically said "Yeah, they're worth it" (and they actually ended up staying a lot longer). But, generally, the answer is no.
I've always heard that the best strategy to raise your salary is to change jobs every couple of years. Could this be the flip-side of that?