If you find yourself typing this or something similar, instead consider whether you put your foot in your mouth and you should apologize.
Let's talk about why this is problematic and what more nuanced guidance might look like. I have time on this Muni train.
Right off the bat, claiming that 12-18 months is too short before leaving a job creates unrealistic expectations. My experience is that this is guidance you get for the *minimum* time you should stay at a toxic job before bailing out.
It is true that gaps in job history or short stints at companies can raise eyebrows with hiring managers. But that has always been for the wrong reasons. And it's a tactic that needs to go away in this new world of ever changing jobs and careers.
Here's why it's faulty reasoning especially for tech workers. Tech work is increasingly in demand, and employees are gaining more leverage while employers are finding it more costly and expensive to hire. (I work at @Lever, we have the numbers)
The guidance that experienced tech workers get is that they don't have to stay at a shitty job that doesn't treat them well. Stay a year just to make it look good and then go somewhere else where they will value you and probably pay you more money.
Already you can see what you're setting yourself up for if you think leaving jobs is a problem. You're going to self select out of people who are actually motivated and career driven. They are actively looking for a good place to commit to. Not settling for less.
Those are the people you want. And they don't have to take shit from you or anybody else about "loyalty to the company". You need to show them why they should stay. They don't need you. It's the other way around.
Now let's talk about why this sentiment from execs and hiring managers is also problematic. Saying that staying in a job is the employee's responsibility also increases the burden on people from marginalized groups. The toxicity I mentioned affects us disproportionately.
There is a whole movement that is trying to tell you all the that the underrepresented groups in your company are feeling underserved, undervalued, overworked, excluded, discriminated against, and violated. We are trying to convince them they deserve better.
For you to pile on to this burden by telling these URMs that they can't leave because it'll make it harder for them to get that next job? That makes you part of the problem. And you're also seriously harming your ability to hire a diverse team. This is how it works.
We need to stop cargo culting this bullshit hiring advice from the 80s. Pick your head up and look around at the environment you are building your company in. You're building a startup that might be dead in 2 years if you fuck it up. But EYE need to show longevity? GTFOH
Before I go into this Muni tunnel, let me give some practical advice.
- Get used to recruiting and hiring. Get *good* at it. Expect to do it a lot.
- Work to make it cheaper and more repeatable. You should have a program and train people.
- Talk to *more* candidates.
- Get used to recruiting and hiring. Get *good* at it. Expect to do it a lot.
- Work to make it cheaper and more repeatable. You should have a program and train people.
- Talk to *more* candidates.
You want to hire people who actually have an interest in your companies mission or goals. Or something that they feel they're getting for their time. It's about more than a paycheck. Everybody is offering paychecks. What else you got?
Don't forget to invest in people. Don't get so focused on your company that you forget to give raises, promote people, give them learning and development opportunitues.
If nothing else, please get rid of this idea that candidates and employees owe you something. Staying in one place and "company loyalty" no longer pay dividends for many tech workers. That era is effectively over. If you want the best people, you need to retain them.
Got this gem from an amazing young engineer: "I have trouble seeing why a 10-year-long internal career path is better than switching jobs."
This is what we're dealing with. They are hungry to grow, and they have no expectation that one company can provide that for very long.
This is what we're dealing with. They are hungry to grow, and they have no expectation that one company can provide that for very long.
