Pros/Cons of Frequent Job Switching

Imagine you are the Hiring manager looking for a Tech Lead who is having 8-10 years of experience. He/She has already switched 6-7 companies in the period of 9 years. Will you consider that person working for you? I personally won’t.

Best to do at least 2 years in a company before switching. That's considered normal in early days of your career. Anything less than that is a red flag

This is more for people who are looking for VP/ CEO or leadership positions in any company, switching frequently loses the network which you have built in the country over long term and the sponsorships from leaders for growth. Career is all about understanding the power centers on the company and understanding and navigating them to reach top and that is very difficult if you switch companies frequently

Depends very much on how frequent it is For me the average duration has been 1.5 years - and it’s worked out really well It helped figure out what I like or don’t like in my early career: large company vs small company, early stage vs growth stage, growth vs sales roles And my increments with each change was quite high That said, I’m not too sure if the increments would continue in the current market. I would switch if my work and work culture sucks, or if there’s an opportunity I can’t stop thinking about.

Well, I think <1 year is certainly problematic, because everyone knows that it takes a few months to really learn about how the company works. If someone is leaving within 10 months from joining, then they already started looking 7 months from joining. Reasons to do can be many: getting more money, not adapting to the people or culture, not mature enough to tolerate some of the bullshit that will happen at all workplaces, thereby feeling the need for a change. Some wants change just for the sake of change. However, there are those people who'd like to see a project through - it is these people who have real good stories to share. They take pride in creating an impact and it takes a bit of time to do that. We respect such people. However, we are all doing this for money and no company will correct your salary to the extent an external offer would. Staying for too long doesn't make sense these days. People who stick for too long at companies significantly underearn than those who switch more. I believe 1.5 years is the sweet spot here. I have respect those who switch around 1.5-2 years. I tend to think those who stay for longer than 2 years are those (1) who lack agency in life to look for jobs even when they know they should quit and switch (2) they really don't understand how this game works. You'll see some posts here saying they'd not consider candidates who switch too soon - pure, sizzling crap. It's some psyops by HRs to make people stay longer at shitty companies that underpays. Non-HR folks who are advocating this: there is more ideology or projecting their own inadequacy to get lot of jobs easily onto a career prescription. Companies hire candidates who switch frequently too all the time. It won't make you unhireable because the ocean is pretty big, plenty of fishes. There's no reason to stay at companies that suck for even a month more than necessary. You could suck balls as a candidate even if you have stayed at companies for 3+ years. (..contd.)

Doesn't matter if you're a dev or not. I've made frequent switches and it made life difficult, even though they were all mostly shitty companies and I even skipped adding/deleted many of them in my resume and LinkedIn. Makes you look flaky and unreliable.

There is no right or wrong. It's all about the context. My spouse is a serial job switcher, she has done it because of issues with roles, bosses, some personal circumstances. It has not impacted her prospects and in fact she has done well both from a career and monetary point of view. This is in the HR domain. In my case I have worked in only 3 companies in my 14+ years of career. I know colleagues and friends who have switched 5-7 companies in the same period. More have done well than bad. If you are in a hot area like Digital Marketing/Full Stack Development/Product Management etc.. Your job hopping will be tolerated while being short listed and considered. It's a matter of demand and supply. Not so much in other areas. In good times it doesn't matter but when the tough times come around, like now, a job hopper is less likely to be considered or shortlisted. You will definitely make more money but will you build a career?

Switched 5 companies in 7 years. First company 3 years, 2nd 4 months, 3rd 1 year, 4th 7 months, 5th 2+ years. From 3.5L to 60LPA. I don’t think I would have made it if chosen to stick to 1 company for at least 2 years. I could be lucky or may be right time at right place but this worked for me. And YES my CV get shortlisted. Pro: no nonsense politics No need to unnecessarily flattering manager and laugh on manager PJ Took marriage+honeymoon leave in almost every company except first one. :) Can think about FIRE Did multiple freelancing I decided to stay in current company as it’s in-line with my interest. Cons: You won’t be get shortlisted in MNCs may be but startup zindabad. Given that I took marriage leave, GF nhi bani I keep giving interviews in every 3 weeks/months always. First employer underpaid me. 3.5L to 5L in first three years. You learn in first 2-3 years and then earn. Pretty simple, don’t underestimate yourself. This is not favorable time to switch so could look bad on CV but this is prep time. Phir time aayega

I think the market will correct that automatically. Assuming that someone who switches frequently is not preferred/hired by the companies then in that case their tenure at their last company will anyway go up. So, as a candidate, I should always look for better professional opportunities in or out of your current company. If the market accepts you then you will get it if not then the tenure will average out.

💀 My friend joined Atlassian after switching 4 companies in 4 years. It all depends on HR's mood. Keep your standard flag practice in the bin 🥳

My spouse is in Tech Leadership hiring. Potential VP Engg. candidates are regularly rejected because they haven't stayed at any one company in the recent past to make "true impact". Job hopping is tolerated when you're not expected to have much impact. But if you're a manager/leader, you have to stay and complete successful projects before moving on.

If you have a valid reason for switching, then by all means, switch. There is no fixed tenure that you have to complete before considering switching. I have seen people with frequent switches with accelerated career growth and people with too long a tenure at one company with stunted growth as well. So when you get a great opportunity, grab it by all means because what the last few months have taught us is that the company won't think twice before chucking you out to improve their bottomline.

If Culture, Competency and Compensation are good, then do not switch. Even 2/3 is also good, consider saying for couple of years in same company. From just taking a look at resume, I would not consider for hiring person having average duration less than 1.5 years in a company. But if desperate to fill a position, will consider. So it depends on the situation. One change in career less than 7 years for toxic environment is fine. Will be easy to explain. HR will ask for service letter of all past companies. So do not merge experience of 2 companies into 1. At the end, you want to have a satisfying career, move to a company which fits your needs (or is a close fit)

For positions starting from TL .. too many switches is a red flag, because we are expected to understand the complete domain and propose projects & improve product (which will easily take 6+ months). If the person is switching every 2 years then it’s not worth to invest on them. I personally know one of my colleague who got rejected by the excellent startup just because he switched 3 times in 6 years :)

People here forget that sometimes layoff happens due to that people have short stints in some companies.

I’m an EM at a Series A startup. This is my 4th company. 6.5 YoE. Company 1 - 1.5 years - B2C Company 2 - 1.5 years - Fintech Company 3 - 2 years - - Fintech Company 4 (Current) - 1.5 years - SaaS All startups. For a candidate I’m hiring, based on Industry, team size and YoE, I tend to gauge if the candidate has spent enough time at the company to make a meaningful impact and in process learn and grow. That “enough time” could be anywhere between 6months to 5years. Post that, if the candidate can justify his learnings/meaningful impact in a short time m, I don’t care about it. It’s very subjective and i believe hiring managers have the responsibility to not judge short experiences negatively. Now, if there are too many such short experiences, hiring managers need to make a greater effort to gauge impact/growth, and nobody has the time, so justifiably, those resumes are rejected. As one climbs up the ladder and becomes more experienced, the time required to grow and make meaningful impact keeps increasing. For me, as soon as I became a Tech Lead, it took me more time to deliver impact, as i now took care of projects, not tasks. And now I own Roadmaps, which involve more than just my team, and includes multiple projects, hence takes me more time than earlier to deliver impact. It’s very subjective and needs effort from Hiring Managers, who have multiple candidates to interview and limited time.

If you are aiming for junior IC roles then hard skills matter the most. For leadership roles, companies who that it takes time to understand thing and then deliver large scale impact. Mostly because it requires soft skills more than hard skills and also because companies want to hire folks who can bring their team along after being hired. My suggestion- decide based on what phase of career you are at and if you have plans to break into leadership role in future or not.

In skilled work eg coding doesn't matter much seen enough. In management matters a lot as they are like you were.supposed to solve stuff not run away when things got tough

Switch for money, extended good companies experience in resume, add removed companie's work details in those.

Question is about deman and supply here and not sustainability. Its a pure business call to layoff an employee no matter thier experience then it should be the same on the other way too. Like employees have maximum of 30 yrs to serve to any company n they should see that market has how many companies starving for the skill set If you're current employer can afford your current market price he will counter you or else you get rewarded as per the market price Judging an employee based on number of years they have burnt themselves to make things work in a company should be judged as incompetency rather than other way around is what I corely believe