How do you view the recruitment bias today ?

This topic actually is inspired by multiple recent threads about employers being worried about job hopping candidates.

To me, the broader situation is that companies ask their recruiters to reach out (Mostly LinkedIn in my experience) to qualified candidates that are currently employed. So, your policy is to attract somebody else employees and there is nothing wrong with that.

But if we are playing devils advocate, how does a company expect you to stay at a positon for 5+ years when you are getting bombarded by recruiters everyday ?

Everybody has their reasons to stay or leave (environment, salary, flexibility...), that is not my point. And of course, we are experienced enough to know that a recruiter reaching out doesn't mean you got the job but we have to admit that it is a constant temptation nowadays.

30 years ago, the work industry was different. In this day and age, how many people can stay at the same job for 7+ years ?

What do you think is the sweet spot to hire somebody considering how much the industry has changed over the last decade ?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

clarson

an old adage is if you don't take care of your employees, someone else will.

I think that was said by david packard in the 50's. and of course the sales department has modified it as

if you don't take care of your customers, someone else will

but they never talk about if you don't take care of your employees, how do you expect them to take care of your customers.

I saw a guy retire after working for the company 50 years. he got the gold watch. I only see people staying that only in positions that are more "manual", and don't require lots of training. but in the it field, the industry is continually changing, and requiring training. but companies these days don't provide training. they hire people with the training that they need. so they get rid of the employees that don't have the skills they need.

companies are always complaining about not being able to find skilled workers. but what they don't tell you is that they want people with the skills for the next 5 years and not from the last 5 years.

of course, they do provide reimbursement for some studying materials and classes (if you pass). but more or less your training is left up to you. so why are you studying for the companies needs, and not for the your next job, which could be at the same company, but will probably be at a different company.

companies don't inspire loyalties, and they don't get any from employees. that isn't to say there isn't any good companies, but there isn't many.

the thing to ask yourself is how long are your current skills going to get you a job. because when it doesn't you will be unemployed without the skills that employers are looking to acquire.

Phalanx

It's taken me almost 20 years to find a company that actually fosters employee loyalty. They promote training, flexible working time and working from home. The pay isn't at the edge of the market, but I'd happily trade that for the lack of stress I currently have. They've promoted me 3 times in 1.5 years and when I jokingly mentioned I'd like to be a CTO by the age of 40, they didn't even blink. I got an e-mail within 2 weeks offering help to build a plan of experience and training for my goal.

Company loyalty works both ways. I show loyalty, so the company should show loyalty too. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

COBOL_DOS_ERA

clarson wrote: »

an old adage is if you don't take care of your employees, someone else will.

I think that was said by david packard in the 50's. and of course the sales department has modified it as

if you don't take care of your customers, someone else will

but they never talk about if you don't take care of your employees, how do you expect them to take care of your customers.

I saw a guy retire after working for the company 50 years. he got the gold watch. I only see people staying that only in positions that are more "manual", and don't require lots of training. but in the it field, the industry is continually changing, and requiring training. but companies these days don't provide training. they hire people with the training that they need. so they get rid of the employees that don't have the skills they need.

of course, they do provide reimbursement for some studying materials and classes (if you pass). but more or less your training is left up to you. so why are you studying for the companies needs, and not for the your next job, which could be at the same company, but will probably be at a different company.

companies don't inspire loyalties, and they don't get any from employees. that isn't to say there isn't any good companies, but there isn't many.

the thing to ask yourself is how long are your current skills going to get you a job. because when it doesn't you will be unemployed without the skills that employers are looking to acquire.

I couldn't agree more what you have just said, for us who are near 40ish age is a factor in the tech world. The other factor is ever changing nature of the tech advances itself; we have to keep update with those changes. Unfortunately, as you said very few companies now a days pay for training or so, just like instant coffee,they want out of box ready made employees.

paul78

Azt7 wrote: »

In this day and age, how many people can stay at the same job for 7+ years ?

I know more people that have an average job tenure of between 5 - 10 years than not. Several colleagues even have been at the company for more than 20 years. It's not as uncommon as you would think. I myself tend to average about 7 years at a job.

Azt7 wrote: »

What do you think is the sweet spot to hire somebody considering how much the industry has changed over the last decade ?

I've been following the other threads about job tenure and it's interesting to read. I don't personally believe there's a magic line was to how long someone has to be at their job. And hiring managers that may be predisposed to discount a candidate for short tenures probably have other reasons to avoid a particular candidate. Personally, I do become suspicious of candidates with short job tenures if they have been in the workforce for over 8-10 years. However, it also depends on the type of company that someone works in - for example - a candidate that's predisposed to working at VC-backed startups is more likely to have short tenures and I wouldn't necessarily hold that against that candidate.

Azt7

paul78 wrote: »

I know more people that have an average job tenure of between 5 - 10 years than not. Several colleagues even have been at the company for more than 20 years. It's not as uncommon as you would think. I myself tend to average about 7 years at a job.

Sounds about right on 5 to 10 years. My perspective is a bit different as I come from the MSP / Sales / Consulting background so tenures are probably shorter.

paul78 wrote: »

Personally, I do become suspicious of candidates with short job tenures if they have been in the workforce for over 8-10 years. However, it also depends on the type of company that someone works in - for example - a candidate that's predisposed to working at VC-backed startups is more likely to have short tenures and I wouldn't necessarily hold that against that candidate.

Yeah, this makes perfect sense.

In my case, I've capped out at my current job (2.5 years tenure) and the company is somewhat stagnant in terms of staying on latest technologies. My only option to grow is by going elsewhere.

Jon_Cisco

Every situation is different but I personally would look at the types of positions the person has taken. If you move every 1-2 years but take the same type of job every time then I would consider you a job hopper and would probably move on to the next resume.

However if your resume shows clear advancement every two years I would I would assume you were following a professional career path and would probably be very interested in what you could do for me over the next two years.

Both employees and employers have legitimate reasons for being concerned about turnover. We have all seen companies that seem to always be hiring but there is no indication the company is growing. I am sure some of us think twice about applying to them.

TechGromit

There will always be those employees that think the grass is greener on the other side. Where I work, a major utility, the pay, benefits, bonuses, stock options, 401k, etc, people tend to stay. There's a lot of long time employees then have worked there 10 years+. There's some movement where people switch departments or get promoted, but it's not often you see people leave the company for a job outside the company. There's been a few, the only guy I'm aware of in the company with a GSE left for Cisco, another guy with a long list of GIAC certs become the IT director at a start up.

We even have people that return after they retire as contractors to help out during outages (when the reactor goes offline for refueling and maintenance), because they throw so much money around to return for a month or two it's hard to turn down.

Azt7

TechGromit wrote: »

There will always be those employees that think the grass is greener on the other side. Where I work, a major utility, the pay, benefits, bonuses, stock options, 401k, etc, people tend to stay. There's a lot of long time employees then have worked there 10 years+. There's some movement where people switch departments or get promoted, but it's not often you see people leave the company for a job outside the company. There's been a few, the only guy I'm aware of in the company with a GSE left for Cisco, another guy with a long list of GIAC certs become the IT director at a start up.

We even have people that return after they retire as contractors to help out during outages (when the reactor goes offline for refueling and maintenance), because they throw so much money around to return for a month or two it's hard to turn down.

Great perspective !

I had to learn that myself. It has to be worth it both from a management standpoint and on the technology side.

Most of the companies, I've spoken to, couldn't answer a single question properly. That showed me right away that their grass definitely wasn't greener on their side.

Kudos to you for being in an awesome company. Hopefully we'll all get there one day !

ThePawofRizzo

Jon_Cisco wrote: »

Every situation is different but I personally would look at the types of positions the person has taken. If you move every 1-2 years but take the same type of job every time then I would consider you a job hopper and would probably move on to the next resume.

However if your resume shows clear advancement every two years I would I would assume you were following a professional career path and would probably be very interested in what you could do for me over the next two years.

Both employees and employers have legitimate reasons for being concerned about turnover. We have all seen companies that seem to always be hiring but there is no indication the company is growing. I am sure some of us think twice about applying to them.

I agree with Jon_Cisco. My own IT job path was initially a hop every two to three years in the first four jobs, but each job was a move into a more advanced IT role that my current employers at the time could not provide. In my 5th IT job I was there nearly 8 years, and probably would have stayed, but our manager for the last two years was a piece of work and the company had no promotion opportunities. My current IT role is the best I've had in pay, training opportunities, team members, etc., so I'd like to stay for years, and have nearly 5 under my belt. Still, I keep learning and certifying just in case. Can't sit on ones laurels.

Azt7

ThePawofRizzo wrote: »

I agree with Jon_Cisco. My own IT job path was initially a hop every two to three years in the first four jobs, but each job was a move into a more advanced IT role that my current employers at the time could not provide. In my 5th IT job I was there nearly 8 years, and probably would have stayed, but our manager for the last two years was a piece of work and the company had no promotion opportunities. My current IT role is the best I've had in pay, training opportunities, team members, etc., so I'd like to stay for years, and have nearly 5 under my belt. Still, I keep learning and certifying just in case. Can't sit on ones laurels.

That is what I aspire to do. I'm looking for a great company next as my goal is to be there for 7/10+ years before moving to a full-time independant consultant

Tekn0logy

Azt7 wrote: »

30 years ago, the work industry was different. In this day and age, how many people can stay at the same job for 7+ years ?
What do you think is the sweet spot to hire somebody considering how much the industry has changed over the last decade ?

4 years should give you an idea if you want to stay. At the end of the day, whatever makes you and your loved ones comfortable. You don't owe anybody anything unless they scraped you up off the curb and gave you a job out of thin air. HOWEVER, If your current job has flexibility, benefits, location, is relatively free of stress and a decent salary (nearing least important factor), it would seem foolish to look over the fence for a few more dollars or rumors of a fat bonus before hitting the 5 year mark. I think that once you get to 10 years, if you are not progressing in management's eyes, you might be on the track to a permanent vacation. Looking for something different? Check your company's internal mobility policy. Bad manager? Time for a skip-level meeting. In my opinion, the only time you should be job hopping is if you have wanderlust, there is criminal activity or your needs are NOT being met by your current employer.

EXCEPTIONS

If you were promised something, however after your hard work and validation through degree(s), certifications or tireless dedication only to be passed over for promotion/transfer by someone less qualified AND they expect you to pound rocks in the quarry, by all means get to stepping.
Not getting training? TRAIN YOURSELF BEFORE YOU LEAVE. (hint hint...)
Nepotism abounds in your chain of command? You probably WONT get that promotion AND you might spend the next year training your boss' kid/friend/uncle/classmate, etc...
Know your company and its primary source of revenue. You don't have to be an expert, but you should know the market of the company's business. If the execs are jumping ship, it might be a good sign to pack your bags as well. If your company is publicly traded, you might want to keep an eye on insider transactions at finance.yahoo.com. (I think these might be 90 days old)

Get what you can get and if there is nothing to be got, get to going...

thomas_

Companies are always going to play both sides of the coin because they are looking out for the company. There is definitely a double-standard, kind of how men are accused of being shallow for pursuing women based off of looks, but women aren't shallow for pursuing a man based off of his success/money/earning potential.

I think moving jobs quite frequently when you are early in your career is beneficial. There is a study out there that changing jobs every few years leads to a lot higher total lifetime income for those who change jobs as compared to people who stay in one place. Early on in your career you are gaining massive amounts of experience and your pay isn't going to keep up if you just stay at one employer, unless you happened to land a job at a great company that values employees. In order to increase your pay you will need to change jobs to get the "market rate" for your skill set. The only way you'll know the "market rate" for your skill set is by interviewing and getting job offers. Also, by staying at one company you might be stunt your learning experience. Your 7 years of experience might end up being learning a lot for the first year and then just doing the same thing for the next 6 years.

Later on in your career it doesn't make as much sense to job hop, as much, especially when you have reached an income level where other things start to matter more. For one, it's probably going to be harder to get as big of pay increases by hopping jobs. Additionally, if your work environment is great, then it might be pretty risky to hop to another job where the work environment/benefits/etc aren't as great.

TechGromit

Azt7 wrote: »

But if we are playing devils advocate, how does a company expect you to stay at a position for 5+ years when you are getting bombarded by recruiters everyday ?

The same could be said why to companies poach other companies customers. I think is has something to do with capitalism competition.

draught

Didn't there used be a retirement plan most employees were expected to receive called a pension? Whatever happened to those?
That's right modern companies got rid of that quaint notion long ago.

However government positions still provide pensions and for me that is my plan right now get a government IT job. They are much harder to get. Long waiting lists and such but nothing beats the job security and getting a pension when I retire.

paul78

draught wrote: »

Didn't there used be a retirement plan most employees were expected to receive called a pension? Whatever happened to those?
That's right modern companies got rid of that quaint notion long ago.

However government positions still provide pensions and for me that is my plan right now get a government IT job. They are much harder to get. Long waiting lists and such but nothing beats the job security and getting a pension when I retire.

I personally have always preferred a defined contribution plan with an employer match vs a defined-benefit plan (I.e. pension). A pension may seem like a nice benefit but I would never risk my retirement in a pension plan - nor would I ever want to be held hostage to an employer. I have always preferred the freedom to manage my own retirement funds. There are certainly companies that still offer pensions. But pensions are a risk to an employer and traditionally could only be offered by large companies. My understanding is that many private pensions are underfunded. With many US government pensions are on the verge of insolvency, and increased burden on tax payers, we may start to see a transition to defined contribution plans.

Australia's private pension concept is an interesting concept though. From what I've read about superannuation, it seems like it could be a decent hybrid concept - but I'm not sure how well it's working out.