Ask HN: I've constantly changed companies. Would I be considered unreliable?

As someone that has run a company (several hundred employees) and hired a lot of people, I would say "yes". If you were someone I was interested in, I would certainly ask you about your job switching. If you told me you got bored and moved on, I'd be very reluctant to invest time in you, only to have you leave. If you're constantly bored, maybe you're looking for the wrong jobs.

I know someone who has followed a career path of frequent job changes (always in the same metropolitan area, mine, the Twin Cities of Minnesota) in computer-related work and who has always managed to make each job change a net raise. He is making substantially more money now than many of his contemporaries who stayed at the same company for years, and has leaped over some of those persons for more responsible roles with more challenge (what you desire) and a better pay-and-lifestyle balance than other people with similar technical skills in the same company have. In other words, it depends. If you make sure to trade up every time you trade, you have set up a ratchet that should make your career better over time.

As a hiring manager, I look for employees who have stayed at previous jobs at least two years. If you switched a few, that is fine, but if your average is around 1.5 years, then that seems like a problem.

For most companies with complex environments, it might take 6 to 8 months to fully get you up to speed. Why should I put that into you only to have to do it again? Perhaps you're looking for jobs in the wrong part of tech, or corporate tech isn't for you? Have you considered trying to found a startup, one that you yourself are directly vested in? Perhaps that is your best bet for the future.

Try to show proof that the companys want to keep you- and have a very good reason - like i get bored easily.

For companys the questions is do you reach the break even- the point where the investment that they did by hire and assigning somebody too you, to introduce you to your tools and internal operations. Everything else is rather benefical.

Cooperations outsource codejobs to strangers today. And they do well with it. Never heard a hiring manager complain about the company beeing "a problem case" when it came to investments in hirde guns.

You might not hit it off with your collagues though. Many want the safety. If somebody appears who represents the opposite lifestyle, and shows everyone that life can be lived different- which theire manager might use for pressure once you are gone - things can get a little frosty.

I would look at how long someone needs to work in that industry to meaningfully complete a project or two. In mine, it is about 2 years. If they consistently have below this, I would have to question the depth of contributions to the projects they worked on. New grads I do give a little leeway as they are just figuring out what they want to do.

It sounds to me like becoming a contractor might perhaps suit you better - is that a possibility where you are based? On the other hand, contract roles often involve the kind of problems you wouldn't necessarily find "challenging".

It's absolutely normal to feel bored with a project around a second year of it. Consider finding an environment where you can switch projects while staying within the company. Most large corporations would allow you to do that, at a cost of being probably less flexible with toolchain and decision making process.

Like others have said, the important thing is do you just bore easily?

You have mostly pretty good reasons for the switches. The possible exception is the research career move ... didn't you know going in how little money you'd be making? Sounds a little flaky to give up on it for that reason. If I were interviewing you, I'd drill down on that one.

The trick is, would I even interview you or would I see the resume and think, hmm, I don't know? I try to be very thoughtful about that but I usually get a lot of applicants ... I think you should try to keep this new position for a while.

Just to be on the safe side, I would stay at least 3 years on a job. 2-3 years is what recruiters/hr people look in CV. If it is less for too many jobs, then they assume that you are a job hopper.

So in your case, yes I would say that 1,5 years is controversial. For 6 years you should have changed 2 jobs (maybe 3 with a good explanation)

I definitively would hire someone who has experienced different kind of codebases, business styles and products. Think about it.

As a contractor/freelancer, you may very well switch every 6 months. Nobody says anything about that. It is an absolutely normal thing to do. Just say that you had achieved the goal of the short-term contract for which you had been hired. In a sense, it is probably true anyway.

I'm like you, I changed many times. I get bored easily. I think I found what is right for me, maybe it can help you. I now work for a big IT consulting firm on projects averaging 3-5 months.

As someone who as doubled our eng team in the past four months and plans on doubling it again in the next 6, here's my view:

I use the term jumpy. It is a negative signal, but not a killer signal. You'll have to make up for that with numerous other positive signals, such a extreme technical competence, culture fit, evidence of shipping, etc.

I probably wouldn't point it out on a resume or whatnot, but when asked about it, be honest. Also consider being more picky about the jobs you take. Try to stick and your next place 2-3 years or switch to contracting.

I recommend looking into a large company that lets you move around (specifically let me recommend Boeing). I have changed groups several times and there is very little stigma assuming you can get yourself up to speed in a reasonable time frame and you're not, "leaving behind dead bodies".

Consider reading a book called, "The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels". It's contents helped me gear my interviews towards how and when I would add value to a new group. I believe that is the key to changing jobs - average time to positive ROI from the new group's perspective, not average time spent in a group.

You have some great recommendations in this thread, so thank you for asking!

Unfortunately, yes. Your recruiter and/or hiring manager are definitely going to ask you this and make sure you have a ready-made answer for this question which doesn't involve "boring".

You've spent the first several years of your career figuring out what you want. That's ok. But I would be worried about your time at BigCo, because it seems like you didn't ask the right questions and understand the environment before you signed on. That would make me wonder whether you understand how my team works well enough to know that it's what you want. Based on your history, you've now been in just about every situation out there, and are old enough that you should know what you want and how to ask the right questions during interviews. So at this point I'm expecting that you're going to commit to something long enough to see it through to completion, and I'm going to be asking you tough questions along those lines, mainly to be sure that you know what we're doing, that you're excited about it, and that you intend to finish. If I did decide to hire you, I would probably be looking to structure your compensation around retention through the completion of whatever project I'm hiring for. That said, there are positions where the ramp time is very low and I would basically assume you're like a short-term contractor, and for those positions I wouldn't care. If you find one like that, it's a low-risk opportunity for both sides. The drawback for you is that those positions don't always pay well and are often the first to be eliminated when business slows.

I guess that highlights for me the biggest problem: you've talked a little about what you've done, but nothing about what you want to do. That kinda matters. If you want to be an engineer, you need to prove that you can stick with something from concept to at least the first upgrade cycle (you'll learn more from an upgrade cycle than you will from shipping ten products and then walking away from them each time). That might be a year or it might be ten. If you want to do operations, you need to complete projects and then stick around long enough to learn from what you did. An in any case, hiring managers will want to see that you've shipped something, because that's the only way to be sure that your work was good enough to use. Repeated departure well before shipping (or completing an internal project, etc.) is a big red flag, much moreso than the length of your tenure. And not staying in one place long enough to learn from past mistakes greatly reduces your value. Again, it's not the calendar time, it's what you did and learned.

> Does this mean I am unreliable and my career is going in wrong direction?

Self-awareness is good step forward in managing your career. Be upfront with potential employers on what you've learned so far. And be prepared to address concerns they may have over your decision-quality, stick-to-itiveness, and maturity.

Relative to your next move(s) suggest that you create a scorecard-- get clear about the types of environments & work you find appealing and intellectually challenging. You must probe for those things as you explore new opportunities. Put some serious thought into evaluating if the next job is a strong match.

> Suddenly I realized I have changed 4 companies in 6 yrs. That made me a bit worried.

4 companies in 6 years is nothing. I would be more wary of someone switching job every 2/3 months. So, more than 6 times the number of companies you have been working for. You are fine.

If you are not changing jobs at least every three years, you are not being paid enough.

Changing jobs every 1-2 years just means you are ambitious. Keep it up! You might find your previous employers will hire you back at a contractor rate remotely in the future.

10 years ago I was a bit bored in my contract business. As I'm starting yet another new project, I'm talking with the main contact person who happens to be an attorney, and he said something rather interesting. He's been doing what he's been doing for a long time and he's very good at his job, but it's also a bit bland. I think he called it bread and butter work. He doesn't hate it at all, it's just not that interesting, but it pays the bills and, again, he's very good at it. Yet he thinks about retiring. But every once in a while, every 2-3 years, an interesting project (case) comes along that gets him excited and keeps him in the game.

My take away was: it sounds very romantic to be in love with your job, always, but isn't very realistic. Being good at your job is realistic, but many people aren't good at their job. If you are, you stand out and can command a good salary, working hours, benefits, whatever is important to you. And every once in a while you should try to get an interesting project to keep things fresh.

So who's responsibility is it to get that occasional interesting project? I'd loosely say that's 50/50 split between employee and employer. You can't just expect to get spoon fed interesting projects. You have to look for them, and the company has to be in a relevant position to support that.

If you like research, if you good at ramping up and learning new skills, that can be a good way of acquiring the occasional interesting project, while getting better paid for it.

Sounds like you might enjoy freelancing more? Not sure how it works in the RoW - but in the UK you look for contracts, when you find one setup your Ltd Co and engage an accountant - and you're set --- with the added bonus that your will stick with you employer (yourself) for many years.

Don't worry. This stuff is ultimately judged by the biases of whoever is reading your CV, and people vary a lot.

If an employer is particularly worried about employee staying for extended periods, your record will work against you and you won't get that job, all else equal. But, that's not as bad as it sounds. Some employers value people with Math Degrees. Some prefer PHDs. Some don't. Some employers don't like autodidacts. etc. A 1.5 year average employment period is in that category of preferences. Different employers will treat it differently. Same applies to your time as a freelancer.

Long term, 1-2 year stints early in your career is not usually seen as indicative of anything later on. It's common. So unless it is not causing you problems now, it probably won't later on.

I don't know how it looks when you get to 10X1.5 year jobs though. It would certainly make you an unusual candidate. I've never hired someone with that much experience so never seen these CVs.

The real "problem" cases are people with multiple < 1 year jobs. If your last 3 jobs were under one year, most employers will see that as "The last 3 people that hired him regretted it." That doesn't sound like your record though so like I said, don't worry.

Also, just building your CV your whole life sounds like a drag. Staying at a job you dislike for years just to change your CV image is like taking a job you don't want or doing a degree you hate for your CV, it's unattractive as a lifestyle. If you like changing jobs, do it.

I've worked at 4 companies in three years. Any company worth working for doesn't give a shit and they'll recognize your abilities.

It's not that you have changed jobs, it's how and why you have done it. From your description you seem to be directionless, impatient, and prone to experimenting over informing yourself properly. Yeah I would definitely consider you 'unreliable'.

No, it's common. Many developers focus on purely contract or project work, so 4 companies in one year isn't uncommon.

You have an increased validation in your hirability, as four different companies have thought you were good enough to give an offer to.