[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

I have a few questions at the risk of sounding naive:

1) When individuals in Bucket B jump very often, say once in a year/two, are relationships/ connections with fellow folks maintained? In such a short time are you able to impress clients/make valuable connections that can be used in the future? Say a referral for another job/ potential client for you start-up?
2) How often are people in bucket A, especially management folks, willing to jump? How much does reputation/connection matter than raw management skills? Or is there some other reason why people in Bucket A tend to stay longer?

I know I have generalized a bit and things can vary, but I'd like a few insights and thought process from different levels of a given organization.

A lot depends on the organisation and the industry. I have tried to be loyal to two IT companies in my career and will try not the repeat the same mistake again. 3-5 years is the sweet spot in IT, IMHO though others may have their own opinion.

7 years in one company and 7 years with the other - both times I felt the company takes employees for granted if they stay long. The general attitude is that if you stay long - you must be incompetent to go anywhere else.

The same holds true for the new company when assessing you - if you spend 12 years in the same company - good luck even getting through HR short lists. Only way to switch companies would be to leverage connections.

[careind]

As I see it, the only marketable value that IT employees have is their skill in that specific platform. That platform is bound to fade in some years. So they will try to maximise profits. Money is a great motivator and would never weigh down to ethics!
Ethics should be considered both ways if it is a point of interest. The industry has been around for long enough, but I have not seen the “ethical” behaviour where old timers get an increase in compensation if a new hire gets more for the same job.
HR/Manager type People are cribbing about employees horse trading with counter offer. But They themselves indulge in it if they are on the other side, and it is only the HR/manager types in the other companies that are handing out these offers.
So it isn’t fair to say employees are jumping and horse trading. It is the HR/manager types that are encouraging the skilled worker with such measures and giving opportunities in the first place. They are happy if they get the candidate by such means but are vitriolic when they become the victim!
I believe the current trend in India started an year back with one of the big 4 having > 30% attrition and to stem it , started doling out REALLY big hikes for laterals.A very small percent of the entire work force, the lateral hires with lesser experience, suddenly started getting abnormal salaries. Existing employees caught on to it and started jumping to get the same astronomical salaries as the other corporates also caught on to it!
Dig deep enough and we can see who is actually modifying employee behaviours. It is beneficial in the shorter term but always comes back to bite.

The following would be true for any timeframe. For every HR/manager who is complaining about employee horse trading, there is another HR/Manager who is laughing.

[hondatoyotafan]

Originally Posted by careind

As I see it, the only marketable value that IT employees have is their skill in that specific platform. That platform is bound to fade in some years.

I beg to differ with this i work in network security and cloud security in AWS. Even though the toolset in different companies is diverse. My competencies are not limited to the toolset i worked on. The knowledge of security and networks are important for example a firewall or DNS is the same regardless of the tool and implementation.Cryptography concepts are the same regardless of the stack. I still get calls from recruiters to work on security related platforms where i do not have experience in since they know if i worked on similar tools i can learn the new one in reasonable time.

[Arun Varma]

Originally Posted by voldemort

Okay. Thank you for your perspective. I consider your words to be in good faith, although I don't necessarily agree with your points. Let us agree to disagree.

Note to mods:
Consider closing down this thread, due to the following reasons:

• There is a clear dichotomy in the posts. The manager types will blame the employees, and vice versa.
• There were a few useful takeaways. Apart from that mostly everybody is talking about their personal anecdotes, which are variations on similar stories over and over again. From both sides.
• There will never be a consensus.

All this back and forth fosters resentment. This is not a healthy discussion. We're petrol/diesel/electro/(hydrogen?)-heads; let's stick with that.

I think this dichotomy adds perspective. I agree that the vitriol is not healthy but considering there are a lot of youngsters here in the early stages of their careers, I believe a balanced perspective will help them in the long run. Here are some important takeaways which I find are of value:

1. The more employees understand the underpinnings of corporate finance and market economics, the better positioned they are to take advantage of trends and opportunities and the lesser the heartache for them when things take a turn for the worse
2. Good people practices and governance mechanisms are a must-have for employers and companies cannot buy loyalty. Even if they do, bought loyalty cannot be sustained
3. Employees should have a career perspective as much as a job perspective
4. Money is but one aspect of a healthy career and chasing salaries does not make for a fulfilling career
5. No company or employee is under any obligation to each other beyond the terms of the employment. Having said that, there are some softer elements like trust, collaboration, and camaraderie, which, along with proven and sustained credibility, influence a successful career in the long run

Arguably, there are many more. These are just what struck me as key.

[DudeWithaFiat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

On a lighter note I was once sent a pilot candidate, a Filipino, who had, hold your breath, worked for 21 companies in 20 years of his flying career. No guesses what happened. What intrigued me is that he did not think this was abnormal! You can't build a career behaving like a taxi.

I don't blame the guy for not thinking it was abnormal. After all, all those 15 companies from his 6th company hired him even with that track record. It must've made him believe it's normal .

[mobike008]

Interesting thread.

I'm in a sales leadership role in one of these companies and responsible for P&L of my portfolio which is >250 resources, which means I'm directly responsible for margins my portfolio makes and my compensation is directly impacted if it's diluted.

I deal with these situations on a daily basis as I am part of a large customer account where we have greater than 3,000 resources. Hiring and ramp-downs (Natural or Attrition) is part and parcel of our business.

Since last month or so, I'm in process of adding nearly 100 resources (90% is onsite in US) to my portfolio and we aren't facing any challenges except for the regular one where we see people quote exorbitant salaries and if they deserve it or if client recommends (We hire a lot of incumbents in our business) then we pay them whatever they ask for.

Else, we keep looking for the right candidates till we fulfill our programs.

Due to focus on local hiring, since last 2 years we froze our India to US movement of our employees but, off-late the cost of folks in US is becoming unbearably exorbitant so we are slowly resuming the H1B route again to bring some of our offshore folks to onsite.

I have personally approved 10 movements from Offshore to Onsite in last couple of weeks and this helps us control margins to a great extent besides providing the benefits to folk who are keen to move onsite.

June is appraisal cycle and we all know many people will resign so we plan in advance of creating back-ups and a warm pipeline to backfill positions and this is a natural process of attrition each year so nothing dramatically different is going to happen during this time period.

With respect to staying in a company, There are 2 different perspectives, IMO :

1. if money is the only criteria then 5-6 years is a sweet spot to change a company as I personally tell my delivery and TA teams not to hire anyone moving in 3-year time-period unless they are critical as frequent movements don't give us confidence to hire them.

2. If you want job satisfaction where you get opportunities to play multiple roles and get a chance to travel/or work in different geographies that according to me is more important than money. If you get this opportunity, money and growth is bound to follow you.

I fall in 2nd category !!!

Just my 2 cents.

[NiInJa]

Originally Posted by mobike008

Interesting thread.
With respect to staying in a company, There are 2 different perspectives, IMO :

1. if money is the only criteria then 5-6 years is a sweet spot to change a company as I personally tell my delivery and TA teams not to hire anyone moving in 3-year time-period unless they are critical as frequent movements don't give us confidence to hire them.

2. If you want job satisfaction where you get opportunities to play multiple roles and get a chance to travel/or work in different geographies that according to me is more important than money. If you get this opportunity, money and growth is bound to follow you.

I fall in 2nd category !!!

Just my 2 cents.

This is where generalising perspectives becomes a problem.
( I am keeping the salary part out of discussion in this post)

My example: I have changed 7-8 companies in 12 years and none of them were related to salary hikes. I've never once taken two job offers and played the negotiation game. But I am sure the next HR will not be interested in knowing my reasons, just like my current employer's HR wasn't interested, but I made it anyway, because the position was critical and I was a perfect fit in terms of experience and cost to company.

Whenever I've joined a company, I've clearly defined my objectives to the Manager/Director, and they are exactly what is mentioned in category #2 above, + work/tasks that are relevant to my career path. I make it amply clear that my career path and work experience I get is extremely important for me and have always asked the important question of 'company's plan for me' during the final round of interview.
The moment I've felt that the company is not meeting my expectations as stated in category #2 or my career path is getting deviated or simply put, the company is not holding their side of the bargain, I've left the job after giving ample amount of time and reminders to the higher ups for a course correction. The last few 'jumps' had to be taken within 1.5 to 2 years for the same reasons, that puts me category #1 above. So I guess I will never make the cut in companies having a rigid policy as this

In my opinion, the concept of confidence cuts both ways. If a company expects an employee to be loyal, it is also fair for the employee to expect the company to do things that will make him stick around, and if the company fails to hold their side of the bargain, then the separation should be done amicably and employees should not be blamed or even worse, marked as 'job hoppers'.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by voldemort

Note to mods:
Consider closing down this thread, due to the following reasons:

• There is a clear dichotomy in the posts. The manager types will blame the employees, and vice versa.
• There were a few useful takeaways. Apart from that mostly everybody is talking about their personal anecdotes, which are variations on similar stories over and over again. From both sides.
• There will never be a consensus.

All this back and forth fosters resentment. This is not a healthy discussion. We're petrol/diesel/electro/(hydrogen?)-heads; let's stick with that.

I've observed that after a point threads like these become more of an echo chamber for people seeking validation for their respective choice, bias and prejudice. That's all it is. Just unsubscribe and the thread will go silent in a few weeks.

Originally Posted by voldemort

The manager types will blame the employees, and vice versa.

The Managers and the CXOs who got the hikes are employees! Even the board members who approved the hikes are employed in a way. So I find it really funny when people take their roles (as employees) too seriously and think they are giving away money from their own bank account and talk about ethics.

P.S: If you do get a fatter (than ever) hike and a loyalty bonus in this year's appraisal cycle then, may be spare a thought for the people who quit. Time will tell if they soared or crashed and burnt. Not your worry.

[low_rider]

I wonder why the burden of "loyalty" needs to be carried only by the employee and never by the employer. Whenever the business outlook is tough, the employer doesn't think twice before letting go of the people. There is no differentiation made between "loyal" and "disloyal" employees. Everyone gets the same treatment.

And I really like the marvellous choice of words used by the employers - "rightsizing", "cutting the flab", "keeping afloat", "new normal', "voluntary separations", "keeping lights on" etc. etc. - just don't call it lay-off or firing.

What has happened over the past decade is that from a employee-employer relationship and loyalty based work environment, the stuature of IT industry especially has changed to a free labour market, where employer will try to pay the least that they can get the employee to agree, and the employee will also try to extract the maximum out of the employer.

In not too distant future, the IT hiring may even move to a deliverable or project specific model, somewhat like Urbanclap, where you hire a person for a specific task on a task based fee basis.

[Slick]

Originally Posted by Latheesh

No, we cannot. It is applicable for both (employers and employees).

I saw a person getting fired within 5 minutes of entering to the office in the morning. He had ~ 40 years of experience with the company. I also saw half of the floor getting emptied within minutes (fresher, experienced, long termers included).

I don't know the background of these cases, so I really have nothing to add. A sick company might do these things. A healthier one would absolutely want to hold on to these critical resources and get them working on business.

Recent trend is a concern even for companies who has good work culture, job content, and salary. Mainly due to less experienced new hires getting much higher salary than the existing employees.

Reduce notice period to 1 month. Current 3 months notice period make it difficult for the employees to leave but companies want new employees to join in 15 days (or less). Only way it is possible is hiring people who are already serving notice period (means they already have offer 1.--/2/3x offer with them).

I agree, on most parts, Organizations tend to ignore their existing employees and there might be disparity in pay, with newly hired junior resources and existing more senior resources.

And I say again, nothing wrong is dumping one's org and jumping to a new one. Nothing wrong in renegotiating and staying back either. Everyone should try and get a good deal, but for once stay with the deal for a respectable amount of time. Do not haggle every few months.

The notice period can only be 1 month if all orgs agree on it. Else the one with 1 month notice will lose resources before a graceful handover takes place, as the new replacement would not be available within 1 month.

We had 1 month notice and the HR changed it to 3 after suffering like above.

About the current situation -
I have seen my juniors join non-reputed Orgs at very high salaries, only to be made to work on two projects at the same time.

And If someone thinks I am defending an Organization's interests, then I am not, I am just posting what I think of the current situation. My Opinion.

I am also an employee of an Org, I happen to have seen both sides of the coin.


- Slick

[Captain Slow]

Originally Posted by Slick

Everyone should try and get a good deal, but for once stay with the deal for a respectable amount of time. Do not haggle every few months.


- Slick

I respect that everyone should get a good deal and always try to get the best I can for the people working under me. But there is always a limit and they also need to respect that.
Sadly very few people do this, Seen people get a raise and then leave the company in the next 30 days, as they can get a better package elsewhere.
So the question that came forward - why give them a raise if they are going to leave anyway in the next 2-3 months? (with or without a raise)

Yes, as a manager I also get people who have recently got a 40-50% hike (in their previous organization in the last 30-45 days) but now want another 30-40% hike on that and looking for a change.

Yup same as you - I am also an employee, seen both sides of the coin.

[Holyghost]

Originally Posted by VALLURIS

This is after we offered 24% more on their existing packages.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Salary depends on company budget, and has nothing to do with candidate's worthiness.

Doesn't organizations have a salary band to match the salaries of employees based on various criteria like skills/exp etc? Why do the orgs concentrate on my previous salary to compute my new salary?

I was working with a start-up for the last 8 years and didn't have a salary hike for 7 years. I did not ask for a salary hike mainly for 2 reasons.

• I knew how the company was performing and trying to break-even while being one of the highest paid employee.
• I was not dependent on the salary since I had other sources of income which were 3x my salary.

After the Covid, I had to leave the organization and got offers from 3 companies with 30-50% raise. During the salary negotiations, the only thing I made it clear was that I should be paid what others with similar years of experience/skills are getting paid in that organization. I did not want to say a figure and then end up being the highest paid or a lowest paid employee.

Even though I had 3 offers and others in pipeline, I did not renegotiate and infact accepted the offer from the company who offered the lowest salary because I had the option to relocate to my hometown and also heard from ex-employees that the work culture is great. The HR had also verbally assured me that the salary and position they are offering is well above average inside their organization.
However after joining the company (almost 6 months now), I realize that the only thing they considered was my previous salary and my colleagues with similar exp/skills are well above my scale. However, the work culture and the work-life balance is wonderful.

I would like to understand why are the companies fixated on deciding the salary based on previous salary? Is this across the IT sectors or is it specific to companies and I was unlucky enough to get offers only from those companies?
How do they expect the employee to stick around if they are underpaid just because of their previous salary? I would be forced to change 2-3 jobs in next few years to average out my salary and bring it on par. In last 16 years, I have worked only for 2 companies and I do not want to do that purely for salary.

[dragonfire]

If you come across an opportunity, grab at it.



Things are slowing down already, so hurry up.

https://www.deccanherald.com/busines...s-1113609.html

[kaushikduttajsr]

I've seen both sides of the coin in a very short career of 8 years.

Chapter 1: Spent 3 yrs at an organization when I started my career. In hindsight, I could have wrapped up in 30 days and not miss a learning.

Chapter 2: After my MBA, I got a PPO in XXX. I loved my internship project and had expected the same challenge as a regular employee. Guess what, I realized I could finish my week's work in a day. I did not think this job would keep me employable after 3 yrs. No points for guessing what I did. I quit for YYY within 7 months.

Chapter 3: Working at YYY was underwhelming to say the least. They promised the moon and delivered a lemon. In my 1:1, I always asked for challenging projects. Instead, I was assigned to 16hr day high burn projects; I was told that I need to "pay my dues". The highest intellectual horsepower ever required was to align the dialogue box with the image below. . When I quit in 7 months, my director asked if it was because of money. It was not.

I spent my post office hours looking at an excel that showed me how much I needed to save to retire. One fine day I got a call from ZZZ.

Chapter 4: The work at ZZZ, my current employer, is super challenging. I enjoy each day at work. It has been 4 years to this daily joy of waking up excited for work.

Conclusion: Everyone told me not to quit. Should I have stayed behind like my 1st job and let employers get the better of me in the name of commitment / loyalty? Oh pls. Give me a time machine and I'll repeat this a 1000 times over. I choose my happiness over everything.

Prelude: Nothing beats doing what gives you happiness. My only suggestion to folks who ask me if my hops were worth it - please do not make short term choices by sacrificing long term goals. I had my reasons to quit and now I have my reason to stay. Those reasons made sense to me and it did to my hiring managers at my current employer as well. If you're moving out for money, make sure you're worth it and can generate a return of at least 10x of your salary. If not, it will catch up with you sooner than later.

P.S. This is not an IT story. I believe job hopping is agnostic of the industry and I also agree that current SDE salaries are unsustainable. It has started catching up with hiring freezes in major product companies as well.

[download2live]

Originally Posted by Holyghost

I would like to understand why are the companies fixated on deciding the salary based on previous salary? Is this across the IT sectors or is it specific to companies and I was unlucky enough to get offers only from those companies?
How do they expect the employee to stick around if they are underpaid just because of their previous salary? I would be forced to change 2-3 jobs in next few years to average out my salary and bring it on par. In last 16 years, I have worked only for 2 companies and I do not want to do that purely for salary.

As others have pointed out the system is not fair. And we cannot do anything to change it. To a company we are just an asset. If you want to play the game then as others have pointed out 5-6 yrs per company is the sweet spot.

It is said closer you are to truth simpler the things become. At the end of the day you will never be rich from a regular job. I now a days work with a mindset of having my own gig. That is the right but super difficult way to go. As long as you are moving closer to your long term goal in a company stay there. Once that is not the case it is time to move on.

Note: HR sole reason for existence is to make sure that company does not get sued by the employee. Anything else you have heard about them is plain rubbish.