Switching job in less than 2 months?

[Abhijit Kumar]

Hi All,

I am in a fix here. Due to some unfortunate incidents, I had to leave my stable job and join the next company which offered first. It's almost close to 2 months in the new company and I feel that joining was not a wise decision, but had no option as I was unemployed for two months.

Now I see a suitable opportunity coming, and want suggestions from you guys on what to do reagrding the current job. Please note that I was not actively seeking out new job, but this came from a reputed company.

Thanks,

AK

[Mahen Rathod]

Hi Abhijit,

You should go for it. There nothing like sticking to one company for some time. If you find this new offer better than your current profile you should go for it.

regards,
mahen

[arulk pillai]

Go for it but try to stay at the new position for a reasonable period to make it look good on your Resume.

[Kj Reddy]

Some times we can't avoid changing job in a short period. If you feel the new job is the good opportunity where you can stay for long term go for it.

[Ulf Dittmer]

It's OK to leave after a short time in exceptional circumstances. Just make sure that your CV doesn't have too many short stints. To me, resumes look suspicious if they show more than 3 jobs in any given 5 year period.

[Arvind Mahendra]

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
It's OK to leave after a short time in exceptional circumstances. Just make sure that your CV doesn't have too many short stints. To me, resumes look suspicious if they show more than 3 jobs in any given 5 year period.

Putting aside the present, If the job market is red hot, this is but inevitable. I suspect I wont know of anyone that may pass the criteria above.

[Ulf Dittmer]

Originally posted by Arvind Birla:
I suspect I wont know of anyone that may pass the criteria above.

That suggests to me that the primary motivation of those folks might be based on monetary compensation, not on getting satisfaction out of the work they do. Weeding out candidates like that is an important part of hiring. I'd rather not hire anyone than to hire someone, train them, and see them leave within a year or so.

Another possible explanation for many short stints in a CV is that those candidates are not very good at picking companies they want to work for. That would suggest to me they might make a mistake in picking the company I'm hiring for as well. Again, a big turnoff.

[Edvins Reisons]

When observing one's local landscape, one can identify places from which people migrate, places through which they migrate, and a few "destinations" where turnover is remarkably lower. And clearly, now the process is much faster than, say, five years ago.

In theory, I am not against the idea that one may create an attractive environment at a lower-than-competitors' budget, but most of the time, the "invisible hand" of economics works the opposite way, and attempts to complain about it, or to put obstacles on its way, are of no use.

[Arvind Mahendra]

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

That suggests to me that the primary motivation of those folks might be based on monetary compensation, not on getting satisfaction out of the work they do. Weeding out candidates like that is an important part of hiring. I'd rather not hire anyone than to hire someone, train them, and see them leave within a year or so.

Another possible explanation for many short stints in a CV is that those candidates are not very good at picking companies they want to work for. That would suggest to me they might make a mistake in picking the company I'm hiring for as well. Again, a big turnoff.

People work to live. You make it sound like monetary compensation and job satisfaction are somehow mutually exclusive. I suspect if one dissected 'job satisfaction' money would make up a good % of it. Having said that there are numerous other factors which would make an employee want to quit or stay on. Often times I think this is what good management is all about. Why blame employees for not picking the right companies to work for? Doesn't Mgmt has certain responsibilities to ensure its employees feel satisfied? Doesnt mgmt have a responsibility to ensure employees feel appreciated? I think there are many other 'day to day' things and not just salary that companies who get only focussed on increasing profits often overlook.

In addition to the above there are often times other very justifiable reasons why someone might change jobs. If you found a job that payed the same or even slightly less but was 10 mins walking distance from your house or someone who wants to live in particular city or has a liking for a particular climate, blindly weeding out candidates like this is unfair.

Potential employees have no way to get to know the management before hand, but the companies do get that opportunity with an employee in an interview and the fact that they still hire job hoppers also says something.

[Ulf Dittmer]

You make it sound like monetary compensation and job satisfaction are somehow mutually exclusive.

No. I'm talking about primary motivation, which doesn't imply anything about how much stronger that is than secondary ones (which are implied to exist by the word "primary").

If you found a job that payed the same or even slightly less but was 10 mins walking distance from your house or someone who wants to live in particular city or has a liking for a particular climate, blindly weeding out candidates like this is unfair.

These are reasons to switch jobs once, not 3 times in 5 years. Discarding applicants will always be perceived unfair by some, since the goals of the company and the goals of the applicant are not 100% aligned. Plus, each company or hiring manager has their own ideas of what kind of people they want to hire, just like each applicant has their own ideas of what company they would like to work for.

Potential employees have no way to get to know the management before hand, but the companies do get that opportunity with an employee in an interview and the fact that they still hire job hoppers also says something.

I'd say both sides have about the same amount of time to get to know one another. As stated before, sometimes one errs (can happen to both sides), and that's no big deal. But if it happens serially, then it calls the good judgement into question. Different people will have different opinions what constitutes "serially", of course, but that's not the realm of unfairness.

IMO, the fact that job hoppers sometimes still get hired says more about the market than about individual people. I still shudder when I think about some of the people I've seen getting hired 8 or 10 years ago (not to mention their salaries).
But markets cool down, and as soon as companies have more choice in their applicants, these criterias will become more important. I'm not saying this should be the top issue when thinking about switching jobs, but neither should it be ignored.

[benjik wang]

I guess that my resume looks real bad. I have changed 4 companies during less than 3 years :-)

[Kevin Smither]

There can be many reasons for switching jobs, what happens to those who are laid off? And also contractors who work for fixed length contracts, say 1 yr? Surely you're not including these cases?

[Edvins Reisons]

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
I'd rather not hire anyone than to hire someone, train them, and see them leave within a year or so.

Can you afford to do so? If the company is an intermediate place on people's migration paths, as this expression of insecurity suggests, putting additional constraints on recruitment is not far from waiting until everybody has left.
I am writing this with an example in mind, and they are obviously not in a position to sort CVs by who spent how much time in how many jobs.

[Ulf Dittmer]

There can be many reasons for switching jobs, what happens to those who are laid off?

That's beyond the control of the employee, so it would fall under the "exceptional circumstances" I mentioned.

And also contractors who work for fixed length contracts

Yes, different rules apply to contractors.
[ April 10, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]

[Ulf Dittmer]

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

I'd rather not hire anyone than to hire someone, train them, and see them leave within a year or so.

To which Edvins Reisons replied:

Can you afford to do so? If the company is an intermediate place on people's migration paths, as this expression of insecurity suggests, putting additional constraints on recruitment is not far from waiting until everybody has left.
I am writing this with an example in mind, and they are obviously not in a position to sort CVs by who spent how much time in how many jobs.

So far the companies I worked for (and with) haven't had problems finding motivated employees that we were able to retain long term. But I/we have also had the opposite happen, and those experiences led me to my opinion on this.
But you're quite right, there are companies that are not in a position to be choosy, just like there are employees that can't afford to be.

[arulk pillai]

IMHO, isn't it more important to know what you contributed and what value you added than to know how long you have been with a company? If it is less than 1-2 years I can understand. Employers also have the responsibility of being pro-active enough to retain the right talents by assigning more challenging tasks, recognizing, remunerating etc.

Not all companies pro-actively recognize your contribution and remunerate you accordingly. I have seen many companies willing to match the offer only when you decide to leave. Why is it so? Also there are companies willing to retain the right talent and consequently the employees seem to be happy there.

At times people do make the wrong career move and subsequently try to correct it. Sometimes the employers hype up the position on offer and eventually employees decide to move on. But if you move around more often then you will be judged as an unstable candidate (e.g. more than 3 jobs in 5 years). Commitement is paramount in seeing a project through from inception to completion where you can acquire not only technical skills like full SDLC, etc but also non-technical skills like liasing with the business, domain knowledge etc.

So candidates need to be very careful in choosing the right job. The first offer you get might not be the best one for you? You need to look at the offer beyond just remuneration alone e.g. technologies used, prospects to grow within the company, responsibilities, visibility of the project you will be working on etc.

[Maris Orbidans]

To me, resumes look suspicious if they show more than 3 jobs in any given 5 year period.

It doesn't always mean that there is something wrong. I had to change jobs several times because my employer had some kind of problem, for example, no money for salaries, caught using illegal software or not paying taxes. I had to work for several months without a job contract because they didn't want to pay taxes.

[Ulf Dittmer]

I had to change jobs several times because my employer had some kind of problem, for example, no money for salaries, caught using illegal software or not paying taxes.

I'd be hesitant to put a company like that on my resume, or to continue working there once I became aware of these practices.
[ April 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]

[Maris Orbidans]

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

I'd be hesitant to put a company like that on my resume, or to continue working there once I became aware of these practices.

[ April 13, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]

From technical perspective it was a good experience so it would be silly not to put it on my cv just because they were caught for tax offences and illegal software. I was a student at that time and didn't have many other work opportunities.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
I'd be hesitant to put a company like that on my resume, or to continue working there once I became aware of these practices.]

I definitely agree on the not continuing to work there part. Why would you hesitate to put it on the resume though? Presumably the person listing it didn't work in the part of the company that broke the law.

The alternative is a gap on the resume which doesn't seem any better to me and "hides" some perfectly valid experience. Explaining the gap immediately after working there as not feeling comfortable ethically I do understand.

[Hussein Baghdadi]

I've had 11 jobs in 10 years

The 'Warrior' Within Jonathan Schwartz
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2007/tc2007104_507418.htm

[Ulf Dittmer]

I've had 11 jobs in 10 years

... all within the same company. That's a huge difference.