I heard about this a lot - that there should be a proper balance between your experience and job changes. Lets say a person is very sound and has experience of 3 to 4 odd years but he also has 3 to 4 job switches i.e. he spent about 1 year on average in every organization, not more than that. So, will he be less preferred in MNC's or CMM level 5 Organizations even though he is technically very sound?

Thanks in Advance.

  • 5
    If you have never had to live with the results of the code you wrote, then there is astrong possiblility that you are not nearly as technically sound as you think you are. Maintenance is where you learn the difference between working and working well over time. It will change how you design and how you think when you see the kinds of problems people have with your work. – HLGEM Sep 26 '13 at 17:26
  • 1
    @HLGEM maybe you don't have to maintain the code you wrote, but you still have to maintain other people's code. With more jobs there would be more codebases/processes/domains/people/etc. You could see the pros/cons of each style. With one job you only know one style. Too long doing that and it becomes the "true way" of doing things. – Mike Koder Sep 27 '13 at 8:08
  • @HLGEM -- oddly, my experience is closer to Mika's, that people who have been in one place for a long time don't really seem to have much of a feel for maintainability or care much about it. Maybe the reason they stay in one place for a long time is that they create lots of job security for themselves, on purpose or otherwise. – Amy Blankenship Sep 28 '13 at 1:30

I'm hoping you have asked the question because you really want an honest answer, rather than hoping to just be assured that everything is fine and there is no need to worry.

Spending only 1 year in each of 3 to 4 jobs would be a big concern to many hiring managers. (Note: If these were contracts, rather than permanent jobs, the situation would be different.)

I would typically far prefer a candidate who had 1 job for 4 years, to a candidate who had 4 jobs in 4 years.

When I hire someone, I want to hire them for the long haul. We put a lot of time and money into training and growing our people. And often, it takes a lot of time to be fully productive on the job. I don't want to waste that on someone who has a track record of leaving after a year.

You might be technically sound, and have just had a run of bad luck which has caused you to quickly move form job to job. Or, you might be someone who actually has 1 year of experience repeated 4 times, rather than someone with 4 years of experience.

So, he will be less preferred in MNC's or CMM level 5 Organizations even though he is technically very sound?

I can't speak for MNCs or CMM Level 5 companies, but I know he will be far less preferred by every company I have ever worked for.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    @JoeStrazzere Would you also please give a few examples on how you spent money on growing people ? How would a software firm manage growing ALL of its people ? – happybuddha Sep 26 '13 at 16:19
  • 2
    Not only would I be worried about whther he can get long well enough to stay but I would be worried that he had not had to support the work he had done and therfore has not learned what actually works for the long haul vice what gets the product out the door. 4 years experience and 4 jobs of one year each would likely put this person at the bottom of my pile and he would likely only get interviewed if I had no better prospects. – HLGEM Sep 26 '13 at 17:22
  • 2
    Doesn't the nature of the jobs and the work done play a role? Maybe in this case contract work isn't considered a job? – user8365 Sep 26 '13 at 18:20
  • 2
    @HLGEM You are assuming that all the jobs the person did were development. It is entirely possible he ended up maintaining someone else's code. Possibly maintained code all his career and kept hopping jobs just in chance of finding some developmental roles. – happybuddha Sep 26 '13 at 18:38
  • 1
    My job isn't hiring, I'm a SW developer. I'm in my 3rd real (after school) job now. In two previous jobs I only stayed for just over a year each. In the current job I've been 5 months. I'm already kind of bored, because there isn't really anything new to learn. It took less than two weeks to be as productive as my team mates (in all of the jobs). Imho not changing job frequently would seem like there's no passion for learning new things. At least if the job only involves one or two "products". It's totally different if there's dozens of "products" to work with. – Mike Koder Sep 27 '13 at 8:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .