Are we dignifying Suster's post a little by calling this a "debate"? Has anyone reputable reinforced Suster's side?
what do you think about it?
But that's not what he said. He said:
* Never hire job hoppers. Never.
* You don't have to be a lifer. 6 years is fine.
* If they've had 5 jobs of 2 years or less, buh bye [sic].
* If you're 30 and have had 6 jobs since college, you're probably disloyal, you don't have staying power, you're in it for yourself instead of the company.
Six years! 6-7 years may make sense for the Sr. Managers of Strategy Consulting at Accenture, but it's totally out of step with the industry we work in.
There's still no debate here.
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.