The biggest challenge I had with hiring people who were job hoppers is they didn't have the sort of mentored growth you see in people who spent several years working to grow themselves. Basically, they were doing the same 10-100k line of code projects they were when they got out of college but expecting to be paid more because they had "7 years of industry experience."
I'm sorry, but if you haven't learned to take on larger projects --- and learning two different platforms and a language a year don't cut it --- why should you be paid more than someone with the two years of experience you need to learn to estimate and deliver simple tasks at quality?
This may sound like a hypothetical argument, but it was a serious hiring quality issue I ran into with entire industries that are pro-hopping (finance and startups were the biggest). After a few years of hundreds of phone and in-person interviews with dud "superstar" candidates, you get cynical. As it sounds like the article author is.
The question of how much experience a candidate has on your platform has nothing to do with how often they "hop jobs" (and can we stop calling it that now?).
It's hard to interview people, and the penalty for making a bad hiring decision really is steep. But don't scapegoat.
"1 year of experience, repeated 7 times" is not the same thing as "7 years experience" in my book, and from the heat his original post generated, it's not clear that everyone agrees.
Comments
The biggest challenge I had with hiring people who were job hoppers is they didn't have the sort of mentored growth you see in people who spent several years working to grow themselves. Basically, they were doing the same 10-100k line of code projects they were when they got out of college but expecting to be paid more because they had "7 years of industry experience."
I'm sorry, but if you haven't learned to take on larger projects --- and learning two different platforms and a language a year don't cut it --- why should you be paid more than someone with the two years of experience you need to learn to estimate and deliver simple tasks at quality?
This may sound like a hypothetical argument, but it was a serious hiring quality issue I ran into with entire industries that are pro-hopping (finance and startups were the biggest). After a few years of hundreds of phone and in-person interviews with dud "superstar" candidates, you get cynical. As it sounds like the article author is.
This comment seems somewhat incoherent.
The question of how much experience a candidate has on your platform has nothing to do with how often they "hop jobs" (and can we stop calling it that now?).
It's hard to interview people, and the penalty for making a bad hiring decision really is steep. But don't scapegoat.
"1 year of experience, repeated 7 times" is not the same thing as "7 years experience" in my book, and from the heat his original post generated, it's not clear that everyone agrees.