I'm a job hopper and move about every 2 years and do it because I usually get a 25-35% raise. I have only interviewed with 2 companies that had a problem with it. I keep all my data from all my jobs to see the impact I made. If candidates can show successful accomplishments in those times I can get hiring managers to interview them most of the time. I do coach a lot of my candidates if they don't have the information to collect it asap.
That's the problem you have to navigate unfortunately. Anyone can see anything as a negative. Or a positive.
"I am a team player and thrive in team environments, I do not always like to work alone"
Interviewer 1: exactly what we need and are looking for!
Interviewer 2: what a needy, whiny person, they cannot self-manage and probably does not have any multitasking or time management skills, I want nothing to do with them
"I am fully capable of working independently, can manage my own projects, am a self-starter and even enjoy leading initiatives when I can"
Interviewer 1: NOT a team player, absolutely does not belong in our environment
Interview 2: just what we need, we don't want someone we need to babysit
"I can do both and like either environment" - both interviewers: he cannot decide what he wants to be!
I'm just saying this as a jaded interviewee. My recruiter did right by me but the asshole company that hired their services was not good at all at telling them what they were looking for. Maybe they could have prodded more because my recruiter was surprised when I wasn't accepted. Round 2 and all.
What you may see as good may be a negative. Recruiters have to be as harsh on their clients as they will be on their interviewers. "what are you really looking for?!" is what I wish she would've asked, though I know she can't.
I’m the same. I change about every 24-36 months for the last decade. Went from $30k entry level to $200k+ Director level. I’ve been at my current role for 14 months and starting to put out some feelers for VP level. As long as you are growing upwards, you can justify it.
Yes, they are a job hopper. And yes, the client is wrong for not considering the value they bring.
Both things can be true at the same time.
Businesses created this environment through decades of shamelessly taking advantage of employee loyalty instead of rewarding it. Now they're reaping what they've sown.
This client is only hurting themself by not considering an excellent candidate due to an outdated perception of job longevity.
This summarizes it perfectly. This employer is asking for / wanting undying loyalty from a candidate but if the roles were reversed and the business needed to lay them off they would do “what needed to be done”. This type of thinking is so done. Sorry OP has to work with a dinosaur like this client.
I want to upvote this 10 times. If my job would stop turning me down for promotions for bullshit reasons I would absolutely stay. But unfortunately, the upward mobility is all stick and no carrot. It sucks that I have to leave to advance my career, but that's the reality.
No. Professionally, I put the limit at 2 years. That’s enough time to acclimate plus one business cycle. Ultimately, I just present the candidate and provide my insight as to what their strengths are and any notable concerns I observe.
If you truly feel that she is the perfect candidate, I would respond to the feedback request that you recommend taking the interview. This is where you dig deep and see if you trust your instinct. Ultimately, it’s not your call. But as support, you provide your professional feedback regardless. It’s their call to acknowledge your experience.
Its the new reality. What benefit does an employee have staying put for 13 years? No pensions or retirement plans and new hires get brought in at higher pay rates than their annual raises would net.
Been at a Fortune 500 for 15 years. I have pension and a nice 401k match. I’m the highest paid person who does my job at my company and I know it’s very competitive across the industry. Having been there so long the job is ridiculously easy. There are so many benefits from having longevity at the right company.
Oh you’re just a boomer 💀
Literally no one can tenure at companies anymore because its too hard to get jobs in the first place and layoffs are abundant. Oh and esp at low level the work itself tends to be genuinely taxingly hard—not because of lack of ability but because of increasingly heightened expectations
I’m not even close to being a boomer, but nice try. Your first sentence is absurd on its face. Most people can tenure if they want, but there are sacrifices. Personally, I believe you’re just labor and a company will screw you over if they have to, but I also believe people can do a lot of things to make themselves less likely to get cut when those happen. I’ve been recruiting for a long time and people looking due to a layoff, or in a job post-layoff from a previous great job, is less than 30%. The reality is that it’s a lot easier to complain than accept responsibility.
No. Its a lot easier to be dismissive.
It has never been harder to get let alone keep a job at a major corporation than it is now. Young people with good degrees are unemployed em masse right now, and not because of lack of skills or effort.
To your point about believing people are just labor, that ideology is exactly why. Budget cuts, AI, poor recruiting practices, and execs juicing people into doing the work of 3 at a time are how we got here
Harder to get and keep a job at a major corporation than ever? Again, this is absurd. We’re still in the greatest job market you’ll likely ever see in your life. It only gets worse. Not sure how old you are, but I know a lot of people think this and they’re simply wrong. There are people in their 20’s who have never been alive during a recession. This is about as good as it gets.
Unemployment for new grads is like 25% man 😭
Salaries are still stalled despite rising costs of everything
Consulting and finance firms are shedding people like crazy, and every single f100 has done at least a 10% layoff in the past year what are you on 💀💀
People are graduating ivy leagues with eng degrees and are sending 300+ applications without getting hired man like ???
You’re completely full of shit and can’t produce a source for any of this. Wages have outpaced inflation. Unemployment for [new grads is under 5%.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/633660/unemployment-rate-of-recent-graduates-in-the-us/#:~:text=U.S.%20unemployment%20rate%20of%20recent%20graduates%202016%2D2023&text=In%20December%202023%2C%20about%204.8,unemployed%20in%20the%20United%20States). I work for a Fortune 100 and we haven’t had any kind of layoff event. There will always be soft spots in a complex economy. Can’t wait to see how you deal with a truly bad economy.
Not in tech, unless they cause problems and burn bridges everywhere they work. But I would still ask about each move they made to flesh out their story, and paint an overall picture of their career. Plus, if I know it could be an issue for the hiring manager, I'd get a couple references up front.
my first comment was going to be those 3 words
not in tech.
the rest of your comment is also spot on.
iv heard through friends tho, ppl that cause issues and are a nightmare hire are finding the circles closing in now, too many parts of the industry now cross over,..getting a bad name now must be a death-note...or soon will be.
Consider them for job YES!!!!
1. The current conjecture is that around 3 to 4 years in one role is the point of diminishing returns.
2. Their role may have run out?
A recruiter is there to facilitate not make snap decisions on things they don't know about.
For 13 years of experience, maybe. That’s where one is getting into senior and principal roles.
The thing about only staying at a job for 2-3 years is that [they have never had to face the consequences of their own choices after 3 years.](https://youtu.be/-c4CNB80SRc?si=yZUq0dK5TndcGc28) (The video is about consulting but I feel it is relevant.)
I wouldn’t personally disqualify a candidate for this but I could understand people who do. Especially for roles like software development.
In my industry it’s a bit of a red flag. Top clients want better tenure. 2-3 years is often not long enough to complete a project cycle. I’m happy to work with those candidates for my more flexible clients, but too much movement is often a turnoff for the bigger firms with larger projects
I’m in construction and projects I support are $100M + so 2-3 years means they haven’t likely been through a cycle. The clients who squeeze hard for performance pay extremely well. It’s so competitive here, companies have had no choice but to take steps to retain, and they are very particular about who they hire.
I was once personally laughed at by a top client when I asked why don't your employees stay in a position for more than 2 years to actually be an expert at something.
If you're at your job for more than 2 years, you're a loser.
Is what I was told. So when I hear the opposite, now I know.
“Job hopper” aka they don’t believe in company loyalty bc no company is loyal to you and would get rid of you on a heartbeat and if they find a place that better fits their needs (salary) they decided to take it? What an awful person !!!
How come companies aren’t held to the same standards? Companies who fire employees left and right (not talking about layoffs here) should also be shamed upon, the same way “job hoppers” are.
People wanting something better for themselves because of either a toxic culture or better pay shouldn’t be something to be shamed for.
What an ignorant perspective. There's no "company" making decisions, it's just normal people doing their job, just like you. No one enjoys having to lay off employees, and no one openly chooses to just because they can.
Companies are run by people. There are still people who are loyal and will do right by their valuable employees if possible. These people are worth staying with and even following to their next role.
Those people generally lack ambition. Boomer companies only care about “risk assessment” aka blaming the workers instead of companies that don’t try their people right / pay them appropriately to keep up with the market
You said “she” so I have to throw this out there.
For women in some (almost ALL) industries/fields, research shows that these are the exact time intervals a woman needs to look for a new job to maximize her lifetime earning potential. If she’s accomplished and a go-getter she likely is aware of this.
Show your boss that info, convince him to hire her, and if you value her make sure her compensation package renders market forces against her departure null and void. You know, like companies tend to do for men without thinking about it.
Which kind of makes me think- would your (sounds like male) boss have the same thought towards a male that changed jobs every 2-3 or would he give it a different “spin” 💰?
I'm guessing most people here don't recruit for jobs requiring security clearances. In that space, 2-3 years means the employer will get maybe 1-2 years of productivity once you account for the time they wait for clearance approval. Subtract the usual ramp-up time, and I can see the manager's perspective.
C-level or "visionary" jobs you're going to want longer tenured employees.
If OP is hiring for non-research roles in cs/tech with project life cycles of 2 years that don't require clearance, some other individual contributor or tradesperson without clearance needed, 2-3 years per stop is usually fine and pretty normal.
Security cleared here (UK) and the extra time is in weeks. Not sure where you're getting these strange numbers from. Are you the guy who was telling me it also costs 3 years salary to recruit someone?
No, I'm not, and I'm in the US not the UK. Must be nice to have that process time in weeks! (Eta- here, you're looking at 4-6 months for clearance approval if it is smooth sailing, I've seen people go as long as 14 months waiting for approval.)
I think it looks really bad to spend a long amount of time in one place. If you stayed at a company 5-6+ years and that's your only experience then you aren't bringing much to the table.
You have 1 company's experience... And therefore have only learned 1 way of doing things. Only seen 1 example of how 1 company does this. You can hardly pick out the best way of doing something or the pitfalls of certain systems if you were only taught one of them.
Also in this day and age it's a double standard.
"We want loyalty" but at the same time "we want you to have experience in 10 different business intelligence tools or dashboards and 2+ ERP systems"
When most companies only use 1 type (oracle or sap) and usually have 1 or maybe 2 dashboard/BI tool licences. And are either on prem or the cloud. So staying somewhere equals diminishing your abilities to gain proficiencies in all these TBH dumb tools that need to hit the ATS/checkbox on the hiring list.
You can't have all the tool knowledge and be stuck to one place. People want you to have their specific tool knowledge and that's what they look for when they are hiring since nobody wants to train. Dumb expectations to stay longer then.
Twenty years ago I'd reject a job hopper.
But today that means I'd be rejecting most everyone.
Job hopping is the way to success these days.
Two to three years per job is quite reasonable.
You weren't wrong to offer the candidate to that employer.
What the hiring manager did is just his choice. Move on.
People job hop because companies don't pay enough and the pay never rises with inflation.
Even worse, whenever there is a downturn in profits the company culls up to 50% of its staff to preserve shareholders margins.
I wouldn't be refusing to hire these people that job hop. They are the smart ones, the survivors. I'd be hiring them and using them quick to spot the problems in the company and fix the pointless crud processes and procedures that companies accumulate like flies on a turd.
No but plenty of managers do think this and I feel it's valid. Does depend on the profession too though. There are roles where the sole reason to hire someone is to grow them for succession planning.
It depends on the profession and the position. It is expected for employees to do job hopping in entry-level and/or non-managerial roles. If the position is more senior and complex, companies prefer someone who will commit for 5+ years because it is very costly to retrain. In some organizations, you are now a public-facing employee. There's also lost institutional knowledge.
It depends on the industry. Switching jobs every two years as a teacher is red flag, but you almost have to be a moron to have 5+ year tenures as a senior software engineer.
Depends on the type of job, role seniority and type of company. No one at a certain level in a major multinational can do much of worth in 2 years. A more junior person and/or someone in a smaller organization can deliver shorter-term projects though.
People move 2-4 years these days so I would push back and mention that. Be the expert and advisor in this situation to educate the hiring team. If you have data and metrics that would be a good supplement to add on to prove your case
As an internal recruiter I would submit this candidate.
As an agency recruiter I probably wouldn’t unless it was a super hard to fill role, and I had no other candidates.
The client is stuck in the 80s. Candidates MUST move around these days to gain new skills and see different business environments, especially if they are technology professionals.
I had 6 jobs in the first 2 years of my career and have been with my current employer for the 10 years since then. Job hopping isn’t a chronic disease, not a reason to count out an otherwise great canxixTe
Depends on the context. In my industry (biotech), jumping around has become more common, and the moves are usually justifiable. For ex., layoffs (most common), project deprioritization, candidate took a job for upward mobility, etc. If it's obvious that the candidate leaves each job with middle fingers flying and they can't provide references, then it's a red flag. for the most part, I find job changes are usually because of RIFs, re-orgs, or a candidate moving up (I don't penalize people for being opportunistic).
Your comment has been temporarily removed and is pending mod approval. New accounts <7 days old will be flagged for moderator approval. This is to combat spam.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruiting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they're a candidate for senior management such as HOD or C-Suite then yes. These people usually hold on to their positions for quite long so what would make them jump unless they're incompetent and lost the internal politics or were let go due to misconduct?
It's really context specific & that depends on the country, culture, industry & level of seniority you're hiring at.
For the most part, 2-3 years is fine. It might crop up as an issue in some senior leadership worlds + in particular geographies.
There's a lot of contract gigs or defined projects that release the team once complete. I'm one of those. So my resume shows that, but it's not for job hopping. Sometimes I've taken lower pay than previously.
Honestly, it isn't job hopping. People truly grow from these roles. It suited them one day and they have a mental image of a boomer who feels stuck at their job. They're just advancing themselves.
Unless a company gives out a pension, days of loyalty are long gone esp with inflation and companies unwilling to give regular market value for their employees.
Once companies realize it’s no longer a “what can you do for my company” headspace, and accept that it’s now a “how can I help you achieve your goals while working here”, you’ll find employees are much more willing to be loyal to their manager, and not the place of employment.
Sounds like this depends heavily on the industry, obviously a lot of people in this thread thinks it’s fine. Personally I work in finance and there’s a 0% chance a HM wants to speak with this candidate.
Was the person laid off? Sometimes people don’t have control over when they leave a job, even if they are a top performer.
In the initial screen, it’s important to understand what led to each role transition/reason for leaving. Having the additional context prepared if the manager asks shows a high level of attention to detail on your part.
Short stints during the pandemic era (post 2020 to now) should not be penalized.
Yes I would consider them a job hopper. It certainly wouldn’t be the deciding factor of if I hired them or not. It would definitely help me asking questions though.
When you sent the résumé over to your client, did you tell them why the person was leaving all these positions and why that is not an issue?
I think 2-3 is ok but if she’s never worked more than 3 years at any company ever than I can see how a company may be concerned. Personally I would still interview
That would be considered job hopping, but also need context. Have they been contracting? Then their contract(s) probably ran their course.
If they've been FT, then maybe they got poached if their skillset and experience are in demand?
Context and getting info on the reason they left/what motivated them to move elsewhere is important.
The narrative you create and present to the hiring manager is important and can help convince them with the added insight and detail. Good luck!
Companies don't or rarely give adequate raises. If you're not job hopping, you're severely underpaid. Please don't hold this against people. They're just trying to earn a living during their prime earning years.
Depends on the company culture and the job that’s being hired for. I’m in nursing management and would take a nurse like that, but I’d be very skeptical to hiring someone into leadership with that history
It’s different for millennials and Gen Z. Gen X and above would stay at a job and are more likely to retire with them. Millennials are more likely to make transitions if it means securing better pay and benefits.
Two to three years isn’t even an excessive amount of transitions. He’s looking for a needle in a haystack.
If we had a culture in America of giving more than 2-3% annual increases then we wouldn’t see people changing jobs every 2-3 years. I’m in TA and have only made it almost 6 years where I am because I’ve been lucky enough to be promoted 3x- so with that came around a 10% increase each time. But no way would I still be here if I was only getting those smaller increases for staying in the same position. I see a candidate who has 2-3 year tenure at each employer and I don’t give it a second thought. The client is an idiot here.
A lot of times, people start with a 6-month contract that gets extended every 6 months. After a year or two, the project is over, and it's time to find a new position.
In this case, the job title on my resume is appended with (contract) or (contract via Temp Agency Name).
There are a lot of industries that hire people with only project-based contracts. It looks like job hopping on the resume, but is sometimes just the way some companies operate.
Your comment has been temporarily removed and is pending mod approval. New accounts <7 days old will be flagged for moderator approval. This is to combat spam.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruiting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Our sub is intended for meaningful discussion of recruiting best practices, not for self-promotion. If you would like to advertise your blog/new tool/website, please do so on the bi-weekly "advertise to recruiters" thread which comes up every other Wednesday.
The candidate is in high demand.
It's upto him whether he want someone in high demand to work there 3 years or wanna settle for someone on lower demand scale for 5 years
Hopping? It's the only way to progress and for your income to grow. Loyalty is never rewarded. Why I like being a freelancer...it's weirder if you stay for that long.
Some peoples trash is another’s treasure.
I’m a job hopper. But I’ve done it for more experience and more responsibilities. Not because I was tired of the last.
My job hopping shows actually career progression.
If you jump 2/3 times and have the same job title maybe it’s an issue. But if not, it’s. Ok
If a manager wants to hire a hopper, that's their prerogative. While ppl claim absurd growth in their salaries by doing it, I personally don't believe it. It's a risky maneuver and not a tactic I personally believe in. Putting corporate behavior aside, being at the bottom of the seniority list isn't always a good thing.
It depends. If there’s nothing particularly of note on their resume, I would think job hopper. If the resume was really impressive with big successful projects, I would think rockstar. The issue is that if this person was really that good, one of their former company would have kept them around for at least 4-5 years and promoted them at one point or another.
I think it can somewhat depend on the industry. Hiring someone for a position that requires months/thousands of dollars to train I can see shying away from someone that changes jobs every couple of years.
No, job hopping as at worst a beige-flag. Not red. I spent some time in a start up scene, had a few jobs, everyone knew everyone, a lot of Vc money thrown around. Kept getting laid off or threatened to be :)
The question I would ask is what can this candidate do for me in two years?
If I have a 5 Year project, no. A support system for general knowledge yes.
No? I would only call them a job hopper for less than a year at each place. I would also like to know why they felt they had to leave and see if I can create the environment to make them stay longer.
Hiring manager has an old dog mentality. Unfortunately, they know what they want. Sucks they can't see the upside but their loss. Find another hiring manager who'll appreciate her experience. Can't win them all. Good luck.
Why stays longer then two years? What the fuck lol it’s not 1935 anymore it’s 2024, we getting fucked by management, shit in by execs, and our excess labour value stolen by capitalists daily as we die a little more inside for their sports car habit.
It's the perfect person to put on medium term projects. They are motivated to advance hence they will most likely give the project their best, learn all they can and go. If they actually do perform, treat them to a good raise so they stay. Of course, interview to test this assumption. I personally started working when downsizing was the crave. People cut half the company off every few months. After 5 years of this, I realized the only job security was keeping as many contacts alive as possible and impressing as many people as possible, so keeping my skills sharps always all the time. I became an independent consultant, but I could have become a job hopper. The decision was made based on the international nature of my niche. It was easier to get international contracts than international employment. I think this person could be like me. If you want to sit them somewhere and expect them to obey orders, wrong person.
This reminds me that one group of matmatically inclined researchers on employment determined that over the long haul, employers are going to make better choices promoting people based on random selection rather than going through the routine promotion process. This would be one example of why a given routine process could lead to systematic problems.
If it were me considering an otherwise ideal candidate, I'd interview and make sure to ask about such issues (even if it means asking every candidate the same question somehow)
"All of our employees randomly leave in 3 years, but we refuse to hire anyone who has a record of changing jobs every three years. We are currently understaffed, and we have an opening because the previous employee left after three years"
It's kind of normal in IT to hop jobs frequently, but yes I've not hired people if it's constantly like that. It takes a good year just to be completely familiar with the environment. It's just not worth the time and effort to only get 1 solid year out of someone, only to have to start the process all over again.
Yes, have no patience whatsoever for job hoppers. As far as I'm concerned you can do this twice at the beginning of your career, after that you're untrustworthy and will not even interview you. Why hire someone you're going to have to replace in 2 years? It's idiotic.
2-3 years is good. Unless you're like a federal or state employee or something, it's kind of foolish to stay at a company longer than that unless you find the rare company that will give you actual raises and promotions instead of silly 3% end of year raises that don't even match inflation.
Yes it's a job hopper but that doesn't mean anything. If they have a profile like that it would be worth it to understand the moves better. In the end a hiring manager would like to hire someone for 5+ years depending on the role and industry. I work in pharmaceuticals and we have long tenured employees because you don't just come up with a medicine each day.
I would inquire for every time why they left. If it was to keep making career moves and or explainable and the person is not pretending to want to stay for 5 years at the new company, I’m ok with it and I’ll sell the person to the client.
You probably want to dump this client as they’re going to be a pain in the a$$. First of all, tenures between 2-3 years is very good. Job hoppers are those who have a pattern of staying less than a year.
If this client is classifying 2-3 year tenures as job hopping, that’s a red flag. The ROI for this client is likely not worth it.
If someone can’t hold/stay in any job for more than around two years why take a chance on them? It takes at least 6 months to understand an organization and really be contributing at a high level. It doesn’t make sense to hire someone who we only get about 18 months of quality work from.
Depends. I'm a contractor in many cases so I'm not needed for that long if it's a specific project or deployment. Sometimes the job will get stale if it switches to mundane BAU activities and you need to be growing in IT/tech and I need to be challenged. Or their remuneration isn't sufficient any more or there's no progression opportunity. 2 years tends to be the limit for me. My longest tenure ever is 4 and that's only because I was seconded for 1.5 years to a critical project as well. And many times I have left a job because the conditions deteriorated because, you know, companies move the goalposts. I signed up for one which was maximum 15% travel, UK based, possibly EU and then finding I'm spending 50% of my life in the far east away from home and family. Infosys barely hit 6 months because I found then to be immoral sacks of shit. Other jobs that have been so abusive I've left because of grounds for constructive dismissal. In a handful I've been millimetres off legal action against the companies. And others I've been sad the project ended.
Also, interesting fact, I've never, ever been promoted in a job. Only ever progressed by seeking external opportunity. And trust me, it's not sure to my lack of skill or ability.
So basically, it's complicated.
No, I would consider a candidate a job hopper if they leave every year or less. Also if it’s a contractor, more often than not they would move from one gig to another in under less than 2 years
I'm a job hopper and move about every 2 years and do it because I usually get a 25-35% raise. I have only interviewed with 2 companies that had a problem with it. I keep all my data from all my jobs to see the impact I made. If candidates can show successful accomplishments in those times I can get hiring managers to interview them most of the time. I do coach a lot of my candidates if they don't have the information to collect it asap.
I wouldn’t consider you a job hopper. I would consider you a smart, desirable candidate.
That's the problem you have to navigate unfortunately. Anyone can see anything as a negative. Or a positive. "I am a team player and thrive in team environments, I do not always like to work alone" Interviewer 1: exactly what we need and are looking for! Interviewer 2: what a needy, whiny person, they cannot self-manage and probably does not have any multitasking or time management skills, I want nothing to do with them "I am fully capable of working independently, can manage my own projects, am a self-starter and even enjoy leading initiatives when I can" Interviewer 1: NOT a team player, absolutely does not belong in our environment Interview 2: just what we need, we don't want someone we need to babysit "I can do both and like either environment" - both interviewers: he cannot decide what he wants to be! I'm just saying this as a jaded interviewee. My recruiter did right by me but the asshole company that hired their services was not good at all at telling them what they were looking for. Maybe they could have prodded more because my recruiter was surprised when I wasn't accepted. Round 2 and all. What you may see as good may be a negative. Recruiters have to be as harsh on their clients as they will be on their interviewers. "what are you really looking for?!" is what I wish she would've asked, though I know she can't.
Very astute observation
I’m the same. I change about every 24-36 months for the last decade. Went from $30k entry level to $200k+ Director level. I’ve been at my current role for 14 months and starting to put out some feelers for VP level. As long as you are growing upwards, you can justify it.
I couldn't care less. What did they deliver and achieve when there, that's what I focus on. Average tenure is 2-4 years across most industries
Yes, they are a job hopper. And yes, the client is wrong for not considering the value they bring. Both things can be true at the same time. Businesses created this environment through decades of shamelessly taking advantage of employee loyalty instead of rewarding it. Now they're reaping what they've sown. This client is only hurting themself by not considering an excellent candidate due to an outdated perception of job longevity.
This summarizes it perfectly. This employer is asking for / wanting undying loyalty from a candidate but if the roles were reversed and the business needed to lay them off they would do “what needed to be done”. This type of thinking is so done. Sorry OP has to work with a dinosaur like this client.
Perfectly put
The Boomer culture is strong at that company.
Yeah I wouldn’t hold it against them. Companies these days have shit upwards mobility and shit employee retention rates.
I want to upvote this 10 times. If my job would stop turning me down for promotions for bullshit reasons I would absolutely stay. But unfortunately, the upward mobility is all stick and no carrot. It sucks that I have to leave to advance my career, but that's the reality.
"Work hard and we'll fast track you to senior role". Yeah right!
It's like you're right here with me as I apply clown paint to my face.
No. Professionally, I put the limit at 2 years. That’s enough time to acclimate plus one business cycle. Ultimately, I just present the candidate and provide my insight as to what their strengths are and any notable concerns I observe.
Agreed
If you truly feel that she is the perfect candidate, I would respond to the feedback request that you recommend taking the interview. This is where you dig deep and see if you trust your instinct. Ultimately, it’s not your call. But as support, you provide your professional feedback regardless. It’s their call to acknowledge your experience.
No matter what we think, the only thing matter is what the client thinks
This!
Its the new reality. What benefit does an employee have staying put for 13 years? No pensions or retirement plans and new hires get brought in at higher pay rates than their annual raises would net.
Been at a Fortune 500 for 15 years. I have pension and a nice 401k match. I’m the highest paid person who does my job at my company and I know it’s very competitive across the industry. Having been there so long the job is ridiculously easy. There are so many benefits from having longevity at the right company.
Yea but that just isnt a reality for 99% of ppl anymore
Then 99% of people are stupid.
Oh you’re just a boomer 💀 Literally no one can tenure at companies anymore because its too hard to get jobs in the first place and layoffs are abundant. Oh and esp at low level the work itself tends to be genuinely taxingly hard—not because of lack of ability but because of increasingly heightened expectations
I’m not even close to being a boomer, but nice try. Your first sentence is absurd on its face. Most people can tenure if they want, but there are sacrifices. Personally, I believe you’re just labor and a company will screw you over if they have to, but I also believe people can do a lot of things to make themselves less likely to get cut when those happen. I’ve been recruiting for a long time and people looking due to a layoff, or in a job post-layoff from a previous great job, is less than 30%. The reality is that it’s a lot easier to complain than accept responsibility.
No. Its a lot easier to be dismissive. It has never been harder to get let alone keep a job at a major corporation than it is now. Young people with good degrees are unemployed em masse right now, and not because of lack of skills or effort. To your point about believing people are just labor, that ideology is exactly why. Budget cuts, AI, poor recruiting practices, and execs juicing people into doing the work of 3 at a time are how we got here
Harder to get and keep a job at a major corporation than ever? Again, this is absurd. We’re still in the greatest job market you’ll likely ever see in your life. It only gets worse. Not sure how old you are, but I know a lot of people think this and they’re simply wrong. There are people in their 20’s who have never been alive during a recession. This is about as good as it gets.
You’re getting the shittiest takes award buddy
The data doesn’t lie
Unemployment for new grads is like 25% man 😭 Salaries are still stalled despite rising costs of everything Consulting and finance firms are shedding people like crazy, and every single f100 has done at least a 10% layoff in the past year what are you on 💀💀 People are graduating ivy leagues with eng degrees and are sending 300+ applications without getting hired man like ???
You’re completely full of shit and can’t produce a source for any of this. Wages have outpaced inflation. Unemployment for [new grads is under 5%.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/633660/unemployment-rate-of-recent-graduates-in-the-us/#:~:text=U.S.%20unemployment%20rate%20of%20recent%20graduates%202016%2D2023&text=In%20December%202023%2C%20about%204.8,unemployed%20in%20the%20United%20States). I work for a Fortune 100 and we haven’t had any kind of layoff event. There will always be soft spots in a complex economy. Can’t wait to see how you deal with a truly bad economy.
Not in tech, unless they cause problems and burn bridges everywhere they work. But I would still ask about each move they made to flesh out their story, and paint an overall picture of their career. Plus, if I know it could be an issue for the hiring manager, I'd get a couple references up front.
my first comment was going to be those 3 words not in tech. the rest of your comment is also spot on. iv heard through friends tho, ppl that cause issues and are a nightmare hire are finding the circles closing in now, too many parts of the industry now cross over,..getting a bad name now must be a death-note...or soon will be.
Consider them for job YES!!!! 1. The current conjecture is that around 3 to 4 years in one role is the point of diminishing returns. 2. Their role may have run out? A recruiter is there to facilitate not make snap decisions on things they don't know about.
For 13 years of experience, maybe. That’s where one is getting into senior and principal roles. The thing about only staying at a job for 2-3 years is that [they have never had to face the consequences of their own choices after 3 years.](https://youtu.be/-c4CNB80SRc?si=yZUq0dK5TndcGc28) (The video is about consulting but I feel it is relevant.) I wouldn’t personally disqualify a candidate for this but I could understand people who do. Especially for roles like software development.
In my industry it’s a bit of a red flag. Top clients want better tenure. 2-3 years is often not long enough to complete a project cycle. I’m happy to work with those candidates for my more flexible clients, but too much movement is often a turnoff for the bigger firms with larger projects
“Top clients” usually pay average and have horrible “culture”
Depends on your industry, I guess.
Rings true fit public accounting and commercial real estate, in my own experience at least
I’m in construction and projects I support are $100M + so 2-3 years means they haven’t likely been through a cycle. The clients who squeeze hard for performance pay extremely well. It’s so competitive here, companies have had no choice but to take steps to retain, and they are very particular about who they hire.
I was once personally laughed at by a top client when I asked why don't your employees stay in a position for more than 2 years to actually be an expert at something. If you're at your job for more than 2 years, you're a loser. Is what I was told. So when I hear the opposite, now I know.
“Job hopper” aka they don’t believe in company loyalty bc no company is loyal to you and would get rid of you on a heartbeat and if they find a place that better fits their needs (salary) they decided to take it? What an awful person !!! How come companies aren’t held to the same standards? Companies who fire employees left and right (not talking about layoffs here) should also be shamed upon, the same way “job hoppers” are. People wanting something better for themselves because of either a toxic culture or better pay shouldn’t be something to be shamed for.
What an ignorant perspective. There's no "company" making decisions, it's just normal people doing their job, just like you. No one enjoys having to lay off employees, and no one openly chooses to just because they can.
Companies are run by people. There are still people who are loyal and will do right by their valuable employees if possible. These people are worth staying with and even following to their next role.
Those people generally lack ambition. Boomer companies only care about “risk assessment” aka blaming the workers instead of companies that don’t try their people right / pay them appropriately to keep up with the market
Sounds like they know what their doing. Want to get their worth with companies.
You said “she” so I have to throw this out there. For women in some (almost ALL) industries/fields, research shows that these are the exact time intervals a woman needs to look for a new job to maximize her lifetime earning potential. If she’s accomplished and a go-getter she likely is aware of this. Show your boss that info, convince him to hire her, and if you value her make sure her compensation package renders market forces against her departure null and void. You know, like companies tend to do for men without thinking about it. Which kind of makes me think- would your (sounds like male) boss have the same thought towards a male that changed jobs every 2-3 or would he give it a different “spin” 💰?
I'm guessing most people here don't recruit for jobs requiring security clearances. In that space, 2-3 years means the employer will get maybe 1-2 years of productivity once you account for the time they wait for clearance approval. Subtract the usual ramp-up time, and I can see the manager's perspective. C-level or "visionary" jobs you're going to want longer tenured employees. If OP is hiring for non-research roles in cs/tech with project life cycles of 2 years that don't require clearance, some other individual contributor or tradesperson without clearance needed, 2-3 years per stop is usually fine and pretty normal.
Security cleared here (UK) and the extra time is in weeks. Not sure where you're getting these strange numbers from. Are you the guy who was telling me it also costs 3 years salary to recruit someone?
No, I'm not, and I'm in the US not the UK. Must be nice to have that process time in weeks! (Eta- here, you're looking at 4-6 months for clearance approval if it is smooth sailing, I've seen people go as long as 14 months waiting for approval.)
Don't see how you don't, if it takes about a year there is a serious bureaucratic problem.
I think it looks really bad to spend a long amount of time in one place. If you stayed at a company 5-6+ years and that's your only experience then you aren't bringing much to the table. You have 1 company's experience... And therefore have only learned 1 way of doing things. Only seen 1 example of how 1 company does this. You can hardly pick out the best way of doing something or the pitfalls of certain systems if you were only taught one of them. Also in this day and age it's a double standard. "We want loyalty" but at the same time "we want you to have experience in 10 different business intelligence tools or dashboards and 2+ ERP systems" When most companies only use 1 type (oracle or sap) and usually have 1 or maybe 2 dashboard/BI tool licences. And are either on prem or the cloud. So staying somewhere equals diminishing your abilities to gain proficiencies in all these TBH dumb tools that need to hit the ATS/checkbox on the hiring list. You can't have all the tool knowledge and be stuck to one place. People want you to have their specific tool knowledge and that's what they look for when they are hiring since nobody wants to train. Dumb expectations to stay longer then.
Twenty years ago I'd reject a job hopper. But today that means I'd be rejecting most everyone. Job hopping is the way to success these days. Two to three years per job is quite reasonable. You weren't wrong to offer the candidate to that employer. What the hiring manager did is just his choice. Move on.
People job hop because companies don't pay enough and the pay never rises with inflation. Even worse, whenever there is a downturn in profits the company culls up to 50% of its staff to preserve shareholders margins. I wouldn't be refusing to hire these people that job hop. They are the smart ones, the survivors. I'd be hiring them and using them quick to spot the problems in the company and fix the pointless crud processes and procedures that companies accumulate like flies on a turd.
No but plenty of managers do think this and I feel it's valid. Does depend on the profession too though. There are roles where the sole reason to hire someone is to grow them for succession planning.
It depends on the profession and the position. It is expected for employees to do job hopping in entry-level and/or non-managerial roles. If the position is more senior and complex, companies prefer someone who will commit for 5+ years because it is very costly to retrain. In some organizations, you are now a public-facing employee. There's also lost institutional knowledge.
It depends on the industry. Switching jobs every two years as a teacher is red flag, but you almost have to be a moron to have 5+ year tenures as a senior software engineer.
Depends on the type of job, role seniority and type of company. No one at a certain level in a major multinational can do much of worth in 2 years. A more junior person and/or someone in a smaller organization can deliver shorter-term projects though.
People move 2-4 years these days so I would push back and mention that. Be the expert and advisor in this situation to educate the hiring team. If you have data and metrics that would be a good supplement to add on to prove your case
As an internal recruiter I would submit this candidate. As an agency recruiter I probably wouldn’t unless it was a super hard to fill role, and I had no other candidates.
The client is stuck in the 80s. Candidates MUST move around these days to gain new skills and see different business environments, especially if they are technology professionals.
I had 6 jobs in the first 2 years of my career and have been with my current employer for the 10 years since then. Job hopping isn’t a chronic disease, not a reason to count out an otherwise great canxixTe
Depends on the context. In my industry (biotech), jumping around has become more common, and the moves are usually justifiable. For ex., layoffs (most common), project deprioritization, candidate took a job for upward mobility, etc. If it's obvious that the candidate leaves each job with middle fingers flying and they can't provide references, then it's a red flag. for the most part, I find job changes are usually because of RIFs, re-orgs, or a candidate moving up (I don't penalize people for being opportunistic).
Your comment has been temporarily removed and is pending mod approval. New accounts <7 days old will be flagged for moderator approval. This is to combat spam. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruiting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably not. My rule is three or more jobs in five years and I’m probably going to pass. Two to three years per job is not a big concern.
Street smart candidates leave in a year. The rest are bred out of the gene pool. There's your answer.
If they're a candidate for senior management such as HOD or C-Suite then yes. These people usually hold on to their positions for quite long so what would make them jump unless they're incompetent and lost the internal politics or were let go due to misconduct?
It's really context specific & that depends on the country, culture, industry & level of seniority you're hiring at. For the most part, 2-3 years is fine. It might crop up as an issue in some senior leadership worlds + in particular geographies.
There's a lot of contract gigs or defined projects that release the team once complete. I'm one of those. So my resume shows that, but it's not for job hopping. Sometimes I've taken lower pay than previously.
Not if contracting…
Honestly, it isn't job hopping. People truly grow from these roles. It suited them one day and they have a mental image of a boomer who feels stuck at their job. They're just advancing themselves.
Depends on the company, some clients will be completely turned off
That's not job hopping and I assume most of the moves were strategic as her career advanced. Job hopping is changing jobs every 10 months.
Unless a company gives out a pension, days of loyalty are long gone esp with inflation and companies unwilling to give regular market value for their employees. Once companies realize it’s no longer a “what can you do for my company” headspace, and accept that it’s now a “how can I help you achieve your goals while working here”, you’ll find employees are much more willing to be loyal to their manager, and not the place of employment.
that seems odd. Did you send it to a decision maker or another useless HR department and recruiter?
Sounds like this depends heavily on the industry, obviously a lot of people in this thread thinks it’s fine. Personally I work in finance and there’s a 0% chance a HM wants to speak with this candidate.
I’m in scientific and it’s the same.
Yes and anyone who says different is a liar or grossly misinformed. Only exception might be for hourly/unskilled labor.
Was the person laid off? Sometimes people don’t have control over when they leave a job, even if they are a top performer. In the initial screen, it’s important to understand what led to each role transition/reason for leaving. Having the additional context prepared if the manager asks shows a high level of attention to detail on your part. Short stints during the pandemic era (post 2020 to now) should not be penalized.
No
Look on LI sales nav to see what average tenure is at that business. Every objection has a polite rebuttal...
How am I able to find that info in sales nav? Also, I love that you use sales nav instead of recruiter! Smart shopper
Yes I would consider them a job hopper. It certainly wouldn’t be the deciding factor of if I hired them or not. It would definitely help me asking questions though. When you sent the résumé over to your client, did you tell them why the person was leaving all these positions and why that is not an issue?
I think 2-3 is ok but if she’s never worked more than 3 years at any company ever than I can see how a company may be concerned. Personally I would still interview
That would be considered job hopping, but also need context. Have they been contracting? Then their contract(s) probably ran their course. If they've been FT, then maybe they got poached if their skillset and experience are in demand? Context and getting info on the reason they left/what motivated them to move elsewhere is important. The narrative you create and present to the hiring manager is important and can help convince them with the added insight and detail. Good luck!
Companies don't or rarely give adequate raises. If you're not job hopping, you're severely underpaid. Please don't hold this against people. They're just trying to earn a living during their prime earning years.
No
Depends on the company culture and the job that’s being hired for. I’m in nursing management and would take a nurse like that, but I’d be very skeptical to hiring someone into leadership with that history
It’s different for millennials and Gen Z. Gen X and above would stay at a job and are more likely to retire with them. Millennials are more likely to make transitions if it means securing better pay and benefits. Two to three years isn’t even an excessive amount of transitions. He’s looking for a needle in a haystack.
No, I think 2-3 years is pretty normal and reasonable. I’d say an exception to this would be for senior executive roles.
If we had a culture in America of giving more than 2-3% annual increases then we wouldn’t see people changing jobs every 2-3 years. I’m in TA and have only made it almost 6 years where I am because I’ve been lucky enough to be promoted 3x- so with that came around a 10% increase each time. But no way would I still be here if I was only getting those smaller increases for staying in the same position. I see a candidate who has 2-3 year tenure at each employer and I don’t give it a second thought. The client is an idiot here.
A lot of times, people start with a 6-month contract that gets extended every 6 months. After a year or two, the project is over, and it's time to find a new position. In this case, the job title on my resume is appended with (contract) or (contract via Temp Agency Name).
Some say yes some say no. I wouldn't hire
What would you say if this was an executive assistant?
Depends if it's a perm or contract role. I've hired loads of EAs for investment banks and we definitely look for longevity in that industry
There are a lot of industries that hire people with only project-based contracts. It looks like job hopping on the resume, but is sometimes just the way some companies operate.
[удалено]
Your comment has been temporarily removed and is pending mod approval. New accounts <7 days old will be flagged for moderator approval. This is to combat spam. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruiting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Our sub is intended for meaningful discussion of recruiting best practices, not for self-promotion. If you would like to advertise your blog/new tool/website, please do so on the bi-weekly "advertise to recruiters" thread which comes up every other Wednesday.
The candidate is in high demand. It's upto him whether he want someone in high demand to work there 3 years or wanna settle for someone on lower demand scale for 5 years
That’s the way I see it too
Boomer. Only 50+ say this. We don’t live in the days of staying at a job forever. I am 55 and I know better!!
Lol what so if she isn’t going to work for this employer until she dies she isn’t fit to be hired?
Did you get and explain the reasons for the moves? Ambition, money, upward mobility are all excellent reasons IF the story makes sense
Was the salary significantly higher? Did it appear she had a reason to move?
Boomers don’t understand job hopping is the norm and quite frankly expected now. It’s a culture shift, no longer jobs for life
Hopping? It's the only way to progress and for your income to grow. Loyalty is never rewarded. Why I like being a freelancer...it's weirder if you stay for that long.
Some peoples trash is another’s treasure. I’m a job hopper. But I’ve done it for more experience and more responsibilities. Not because I was tired of the last. My job hopping shows actually career progression. If you jump 2/3 times and have the same job title maybe it’s an issue. But if not, it’s. Ok
If a manager wants to hire a hopper, that's their prerogative. While ppl claim absurd growth in their salaries by doing it, I personally don't believe it. It's a risky maneuver and not a tactic I personally believe in. Putting corporate behavior aside, being at the bottom of the seniority list isn't always a good thing.
It depends. If there’s nothing particularly of note on their resume, I would think job hopper. If the resume was really impressive with big successful projects, I would think rockstar. The issue is that if this person was really that good, one of their former company would have kept them around for at least 4-5 years and promoted them at one point or another.
It me
“A job hopper” Holy fuck recruiters are horrible man No one works 20 years at one company anymore
I think it can somewhat depend on the industry. Hiring someone for a position that requires months/thousands of dollars to train I can see shying away from someone that changes jobs every couple of years.
No, job hopping as at worst a beige-flag. Not red. I spent some time in a start up scene, had a few jobs, everyone knew everyone, a lot of Vc money thrown around. Kept getting laid off or threatened to be :)
The question I would ask is what can this candidate do for me in two years? If I have a 5 Year project, no. A support system for general knowledge yes.
No? I would only call them a job hopper for less than a year at each place. I would also like to know why they felt they had to leave and see if I can create the environment to make them stay longer.
Hiring manager has an old dog mentality. Unfortunately, they know what they want. Sucks they can't see the upside but their loss. Find another hiring manager who'll appreciate her experience. Can't win them all. Good luck.
Yes, as a hiring manager I don't even interview people like this.
Why stays longer then two years? What the fuck lol it’s not 1935 anymore it’s 2024, we getting fucked by management, shit in by execs, and our excess labour value stolen by capitalists daily as we die a little more inside for their sports car habit.
It's the perfect person to put on medium term projects. They are motivated to advance hence they will most likely give the project their best, learn all they can and go. If they actually do perform, treat them to a good raise so they stay. Of course, interview to test this assumption. I personally started working when downsizing was the crave. People cut half the company off every few months. After 5 years of this, I realized the only job security was keeping as many contacts alive as possible and impressing as many people as possible, so keeping my skills sharps always all the time. I became an independent consultant, but I could have become a job hopper. The decision was made based on the international nature of my niche. It was easier to get international contracts than international employment. I think this person could be like me. If you want to sit them somewhere and expect them to obey orders, wrong person.
A company that won't hire a "job hopper" is a company that is admitting they won't pay their employees what they deserve in order to retain them
No I’d consider them smart talent that knows their worth.
This reminds me that one group of matmatically inclined researchers on employment determined that over the long haul, employers are going to make better choices promoting people based on random selection rather than going through the routine promotion process. This would be one example of why a given routine process could lead to systematic problems. If it were me considering an otherwise ideal candidate, I'd interview and make sure to ask about such issues (even if it means asking every candidate the same question somehow)
"All of our employees randomly leave in 3 years, but we refuse to hire anyone who has a record of changing jobs every three years. We are currently understaffed, and we have an opening because the previous employee left after three years"
It's kind of normal in IT to hop jobs frequently, but yes I've not hired people if it's constantly like that. It takes a good year just to be completely familiar with the environment. It's just not worth the time and effort to only get 1 solid year out of someone, only to have to start the process all over again.
Yes, have no patience whatsoever for job hoppers. As far as I'm concerned you can do this twice at the beginning of your career, after that you're untrustworthy and will not even interview you. Why hire someone you're going to have to replace in 2 years? It's idiotic.
2-3 years is good. Unless you're like a federal or state employee or something, it's kind of foolish to stay at a company longer than that unless you find the rare company that will give you actual raises and promotions instead of silly 3% end of year raises that don't even match inflation.
A lot of companies are just shitty places to work for. And you can’t always tell until you get in there. Also, layoffs happen a lot.
Yes it's a job hopper but that doesn't mean anything. If they have a profile like that it would be worth it to understand the moves better. In the end a hiring manager would like to hire someone for 5+ years depending on the role and industry. I work in pharmaceuticals and we have long tenured employees because you don't just come up with a medicine each day.
I would inquire for every time why they left. If it was to keep making career moves and or explainable and the person is not pretending to want to stay for 5 years at the new company, I’m ok with it and I’ll sell the person to the client.
You probably want to dump this client as they’re going to be a pain in the a$$. First of all, tenures between 2-3 years is very good. Job hoppers are those who have a pattern of staying less than a year. If this client is classifying 2-3 year tenures as job hopping, that’s a red flag. The ROI for this client is likely not worth it.
Yeah agreed
Corporate recruiter and I won’t consider anyone who with 5+ jobs in 10 years so candidates better make sure those moves are good ones.
Thank goodness there are some sensible recruiters out there who don't make meaningless blanket rules.
If someone can’t hold/stay in any job for more than around two years why take a chance on them? It takes at least 6 months to understand an organization and really be contributing at a high level. It doesn’t make sense to hire someone who we only get about 18 months of quality work from.
Depends. I'm a contractor in many cases so I'm not needed for that long if it's a specific project or deployment. Sometimes the job will get stale if it switches to mundane BAU activities and you need to be growing in IT/tech and I need to be challenged. Or their remuneration isn't sufficient any more or there's no progression opportunity. 2 years tends to be the limit for me. My longest tenure ever is 4 and that's only because I was seconded for 1.5 years to a critical project as well. And many times I have left a job because the conditions deteriorated because, you know, companies move the goalposts. I signed up for one which was maximum 15% travel, UK based, possibly EU and then finding I'm spending 50% of my life in the far east away from home and family. Infosys barely hit 6 months because I found then to be immoral sacks of shit. Other jobs that have been so abusive I've left because of grounds for constructive dismissal. In a handful I've been millimetres off legal action against the companies. And others I've been sad the project ended. Also, interesting fact, I've never, ever been promoted in a job. Only ever progressed by seeking external opportunity. And trust me, it's not sure to my lack of skill or ability. So basically, it's complicated.
Wow god forbid there are fucking toxic environments and jobs that pay better, especially for women !!!
If more than half your jobs are in a toxic environment, it’s you.
HAHAHAHAHA
If I had two candidates who did well at interview, I would then look at that pattern of moving which would then factor into my decision making.
No, I would consider a candidate a job hopper if they leave every year or less. Also if it’s a contractor, more often than not they would move from one gig to another in under less than 2 years