Hacker Remix

Hopping too many startups in a row?

23 points by 15characters 2 days ago | 26 comments

The last 3 positions I've held have been SWE at relatively small startups. Within 2 years of being at those companies, big changes occurred prompting me to hop for job security (didn't secure next round of funding, C-suite got replaced, etc). For me, this is the nature of startups- fast turnaround and turnover. I thought this was normal until my last interview where a recruiter was looking for stronger explanations as to why I haven't held a position for 3-4 years recently. Being clear that it wasn't a positive sign to them. Is it really that strange, or were they maybe used to bigger company culture and expectations? Not going to risk my own security riding a sinking ship.

joshstrange 2 days ago

I would not recommend that you go down with the ship but you will want to have a good story for why you switched so often. It's hard to see "1-2 years for the last 2-3 jobs" and not get nervous as someone hiring. Even more so if I hear "The culture wasn't good so I left" or something vague for all reasons of why you left. It's going to take a month or so before they are contributing to the team and then a few months to a year before they fully understand the platform they are working on fully, it sucks to invest that time and energy into someone just to have them leave after a 1-2 years.

The old adage of "If everywhere you go smells like shit then check your shoe" applies here. That's not to say you couldn't have worked at 3 actually bad companies that you should have left but it's at least a warning flag. I've had people with short job tenures back-to-back explain the reasoning and I've been perfectly satisfied with it but I've also had people give me reasons that sound very fake. Interestingly, the people that come across as "fake" are also the ones that give off a slight whiff of "I'm better than this job" or "This is only a stepping stone for me". Those things can both be true but if can't at least pretend to care then I'm not interested.

giraffe_lady 2 days ago

> I would not recommend that you go down with the ship but you will want to have a good story for why you switched so often.

I mean have the story ready but you'll likely never get a chance to tell it. In this job market this is a "screen out without a phone call" criterion. I think it's shitty but it will likely be very hard to get interviews with this sort of recent employment streak.

joshstrange 2 days ago

> I mean have the story ready but you'll likely never get a chance to tell it.

Potentially, depending on where you are interviewing. I didn't write off anyone with multiple short tenures when I did hiring earlier this year but it was a red flag that I addressed in the first interview.

GianFabien 2 days ago

It's not you, it's the recruiters.

There is a wide cultural chasm between the startup world and established companies. The recruiters I have come across have very little real world experience. They are merely ticking boxes as handed down to them by management. So if management wants to hire people with a "solid" track record, then your startup experiences are going to be viewed negatively.

etcd 2 days ago

When you hop, at least get promoted. That way it paints a better picture. If you can honestly say that job C has more responsibility than B and B than A (even if same title) that is good too.

One option is to work for a large company with more opportunities negating the need to hop due to it going bad financially and more room to go up levels etc.

bruce511 1 hour ago

>> When you hop, at least get promoted. That way it paints a better picture.

I mean, it does, but it's still got a good picture. It comes across as "I'll jump ship the moment a better offer comes along."

The problem with job-hoppers is that there are ones done for sensible reasons (I joined high-risk startups, but ultimately they failed, or got acquired or whatever) and ones who just treat the position as a placeholder until something better comes along, or until they get itchy feet etc.

It's hard during the hiring phase to tell the difference, so employers tend to err on the side of "why take the risk?" Especially in the current market where there are plenty of other applicants.

codingdave 2 days ago

Neither side of this story is strange. You have a reasonable history. It doesn't match what they want to see. Neither side is wrong, and you can't please everybody. I'd say if you are looking to stay in one place for 4+ years, you need to start by staying in a place for 2+ years. If you are fine bouncing more than that, that is your choice, and anyone who doesn't like it wouldn't have been a good match for you anyway.