It’s not job hopping that’s the problem. It’s unemployment. Companies actually like job hoppers because they learn more, and actually can find those jobs, hence they hop. Job hopping without jobs (gaps) is unattractive but that would be unemployment not job hopping, since the dude is unemployed.
I’m saying this only for people who are in utter shit jobs and have the talent to find another one, but are afraid to be classified a job hopper.
If someone never stayed more than a year at a job that's a pretty major red flag.
Most hires will take a year to get productive (where they produce more value for the company than they cost).
I would never hire someone if I expected them to leave in a few months (except an intern).
There are exceptions. An experienced consultant may be hired only for short, specific projects. But if you're struggling to get hired, you don't fall in that category.
It depends how many years they've got. It also depends what your definition of job hopping is. Some people say anything less than 1 to 2 years. https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/job-hopping-v2/ I definitely wouldn't be moving every 3 months, since the interview process takes time, and picking the right company is difficult.
Anyway, I was productive within a week at my current company. Have you heard of companies trying to reduce the time to impact (or git commit) of an employee, some are proud that their employees commit go into production on their first day. If it takes one year to make back the money it costs to pay them, that sounds like we should improve that process or get more value from developers, rather than expect people to stay for longer to earn back their cost.
This is clearly a tough topic for some people on HN. I would recommend you just do some interviews (this is not treason), and see what offers you get (this is fair, you might get a nice increase). Then you'll realize its not a big deal for companies (especially the one thats making the hire), it might be bigger in your head and in your existing company.
> Most hires will take a year to get productive (where they produce more value for the company than they cost).
I never fully understood this. In pretty much any company I worked, if by the end of the month you weren't productive (almost fully independent) you would get the boot. Do companies really expect for new employees to take a year to be consistently productive? In startup land, that is like 2-3 product launches, how the hell companies find the money for this?
It is not common, but "a year to value" is not rare either. Some projects (SW/HW interfaces; many multidisciplinary efforts, like biomedical software) take a while to fully get into.
I am not talking about someone not doing anything useful -- that should come quickly. But it may take several months or a year for them to start creating more value than their salary+benefits+other costs. And as long as the new hire shows progress to this I am perfectly OK if the process takes a year. My 2c.
I am talking from experience, where I 'job hopped' to get better jobs which treat me better, fit me better, pay me more, have smarter colleagues and better systems (aka. more agile not just talking about it), and benefits, healthcare. I did my research (mainly getting the confidence from articles online), whilst hearing too often the idea people have in their heads: I should stay a longer before considering moving because it looks bad on the resume. What you hear from everyone/ common wisdom can be a justification for themselves not taking a risky and uncomfortable move.
Job hopping is having a track record of optimising for your own experience at the expense of your employers. Of course that's going to look bad, unless you can explain why this time is different.
I’m saying this only for people who are in utter shit jobs and have the talent to find another one, but are afraid to be classified a job hopper.