Job Hopping

It used to be that being labeled as a Job Hopper was the kiss of death. If you had too many stints of less than 2-3 years each you were considered unreliable and a risky bet. Perhaps you couldn’t hold down a job, or maybe you were just flighty. Both attributes were frowned upon by hiring managers, and your resume was more likely to end up in the circular file. But times have changed.

More and more I see resumes where people have been in their current or most recent jobs for less than a year – and I’m not referring to contractors, either. I last saw this phenomenon during the dot com boom of the late 90’s, when it was the norm for people to change jobs every 12-18 months. Some say that we’ve been going through another boom with Web 2.0 (though the recession may have spoiled that party).

During both booms there were more opportunities than qualified people, and the candidates that were in demand found it rewarding to change jobs more frequently. The goal was not just to increase their pay, though that was certainly a factor, but also to find better companies and more challenging opportunities. Of course this was not good for the companies that spent time and money hiring and training people, only to see them leave just when they were becoming most productive.

So here we are in 2008 and I’m faced with resumes of people with multiple short stints. Do I think any less of such candidates? That they might develop wanderlust and bolt after a year? Of course that’s a concern and a risk, and certainly one that I have to weigh. But If I believe that my company is an attractive one, and that it’s likely to continue to be attractive vs. other companies, I think it’s worth taking a risk.

So how have my gambles played out? My record is probably subject to selective recall and analysis, but I believe that the vast majority of my hires have stayed on for at least two years. If they stay for only one year I’d consider it a failure, but after two years I’d say we’ve gotten a clear net benefit from them.