Job hopping is arguably the most controversial topic in tech. On one hand, you can argue it's the easiest path to landing raises and promotions faster. On the other hand, you can argue too much of it, too fast can be deemed as a red flag. Here's what I think 👇: It depends. 1: The the tech industry encourages job hopping. I mean why wouldn't someone want to switch jobs at a 20%+ increase vs. a typical 3% increase by staying at the same place? Obviously your current employer can't consistently give you the 10%-20%+ raises year over year you'd get by switching jobs or else they'd be out of business. But at the same time, you can't blame someone for making the switch. Even if you have the best culture, amazing management, the most meaningful work, younger generations are prioritizing more money (especially in this inflationary environment). If you can get away with it, why not? 2: Job Hopping works, until it doesn't At some point, you'll hit a wall and/or peak. This is natural, or else everyone, even average performers, could hypothetically job hop to a $1,000,000 package or become a CEO. So it's up to you - and only you - to figure out and come up with a strategic game plan for your career. Let's say you job hop and peak at a TC of ~$200,000. That's awesome, you wouldn't have gotten there by staying loyal to your first employer (at least this quickly). But keep in mind, the faster you do this, the more future employers *may* hold your short tenures against you. So if you do end up finding yourself in a good spot where you're happy with your paycheck, employer, boss, etc - consider staying a while. The last thing you want to have happen is have that wall hit where you hate the company and/or get laid off, and now all the sudden employers think your tenures are deemed as a red flag. 3: Yes, some employers see it as a red flag Let's think about it from the other side of the table for just a second and pretend you're the hiring manager. You have two resumes. Both have equal skill level, both are asking for the same salary. Both have 10 years of experience. Candidate A has 2 job tenures at 5 years a piece, multiple promotions at each job. Candidate B has 5 jobs every 2 years. There are more HMs than you think that will prefer candidate A over candidate B if they are on equal footing. Simply put, they think Candidate A is worth the investment assuming all things equal because they're more likely to stay a while, vs someone jumping ship after 1-2 years and having to waste more time, energy, and resources backfilling/onboarding/training someone else. Do I agree with this? Again, it depends. There are certain, specific situations where Candidate B ends up being the better candidate. 4: It's all risk/reward from the employer side The more talented someone is, the more they can "get away" with shorter tenures because the talent justifies it. Or, the more well-networked someone is, the more they can do this. You will see people on X saying how they've job hopped and are earning massive total comp packages, or reply with an example of a famous/reputable industry figure showing how they job hopped their way to founder/ceo/exec level. Those folks are obviously extremely talented - and the reward from the employer standpoint outweighs the risk of bringing them on. 5: You will be asked about your job changes Don't take this as an offense. The recruiter/hiring manager are just doing their due diligence. But how you respond matters. Be honest. Frame it as wanting to accelerate your growth. If you get defensive or lie, this may hurt your chances for that role. 6: The timing in your career matters It has it's best effect earlier in your career when you have lower titles & pay. It's easier to get 20-30%+ raises when you're at a junior level making $100k vs when you're at a senior level making $300,000-$400,000+. At some point, you hit a wall or peak. There is nothing wrong with that, because by then, you've exponentially increased your total comp by job hopping vs. if you would have stayed. Just realize by that point it'll be harder to get the increases you were making earlier and those switches will eventually become flatter. 7: Sometimes staying "loyal" pays I'm a product of this myself. I've been at the same company throughout my career. I've put in the sweat equity not just in becoming a high performer, but developing relationships internally at all levels (management to execs) which helped put me in the position I'm in today. I've increased my comp, role, influence, etc exponentially by staying, and there's no chance I would have this anywhere else had I job hopped. At least for me, I would not be in the position I'm in today if I switched every 2 years. 8: There are exceptions to the rule Just like everything else in life, there are always exceptions to the rule. You need to figure out what's best for you, in your specific situation, with your specific background. Just because someone job hopped 5 levels in 5 years moving from google to telsa to meta to netflix making a $500k package doesn't mean everyone can do it. 9: There are no absolutes to this topic Both sides are right. And both sides have valid arguments. It all depends on your specific situation, your specific background, your specific skillset, and your specific circumstances. What may work for one person is not guaranteed to work for you.

Hybrid work will become the new normal. Executives want you in the office, but know they can't get you there 5x/week. Employees want to work remotely, but it seems not enough jobs out there that offer 100% these days. Hybrid work = the friendly compromise.