You are on page 1of 7

MANAGING YOURSELF

Job Hopping
to the Top
and other
career
Fallacies
by Monika Hamori

Group 10

2014PGP20
4
MOHAMMED SAHIR RIYAZ
2014PGP03
1
AMIT AGARWAL
2014PGP07
2
AUTKAR PARAG RATNAKAR
2014PGP04
6
ANUBHA AGGARWAL
2014PGP43
4
YEDDU POORNA DURGA

Executive Summary A glance

Objectiv
e

The article is trying to broadly analyse the perceived notions about career
development/management with respect to Job hopping.

Summa
ry

It tries to specifically chart out the conditions when changing Jobs can be at all beneficial for mid and
executive level employees.
It presents four fallacies about job hopping and gives suggestions to executives for a better career
enhancement
As the organisational hierarchies kept on becoming flatter, the number of executive roles decreased.
This led to decreased opportunity for frequent promotions. Executive in pursuit of career growth
started to switch companies.

Scope

Fallacie
s

The research findings are based on


Career histories of Executives
Semi structured interviews with executive search consultants.
Interviews and online discussions with alumni of B schools

Fallacy
Fallacy
Fallacy
Fallacy

1:
2:
3:
4:

Job Hoppers Prosper


A move should be a move up.
Big fish swim in big ponds
Career and Industry switchers are penalised.

Fallacy 1. Job Hopper Prosper


Description

Suggestions

Perception that frequent Job hopping reinforces career


But research suggests that on average ,CEOs have
worked for just 3 employers in their career.
Non CEO executives who have worked in the same firm
gets promoted faster than their footloose colleagues. This
is because internal candidates know more about the firm
and also poses less risk to the firm
Stability and Performance and capability indicators are
being increasingly used for hiring decisions. Frequent
moves are not being seen in good light by the recruiters.
In Japan frequent job moves is culturally considered as
treachery

Employees should maintain


a proper balance between
external job hopping and
internal promotions
One should move out of
the company only his
employability increase in the
new firm.

Theoretical/ Practical Inconsistencies


Organisation is as much to blame for Job hopping,
since it may not have proper HR policies.
The statistics does not takes into account the people
who move out of the organisation due to health/ work-life
balance concerns.
Being in the same company for too long may raise
questions on employees skills and capabilities.

Scope / Assumptions
This report is confined to
Executives and Mid level
managers.
The new joinees and fresh
graduated perspectives has
not been taken into account.

Fallacy 2. A move should be a move up


Description
It argues that one should consider both lateral and upward
movement instead of just running after better titles, while switching
companies.
Promotions met at least one of these two criteria:
40% job switches resulted from better responsibility/ better
title/ move to a larger firm
Another 40% resulted due to need of change in geography,
division or industry.
20% job changes reflected downward moves-a lesser title or a
narrow scope of responsibility.
Lateral moves to big companies enhance CVs by adding brand
value.
Being in the same function in a particular career can stagnate
ones career. Hence, as and when opportunities arrive , functions can
be changed. This will be value adding to the employee by enhancing
Theoretical/
his competencies. Practical Inconsistencies

Suggestions
Lateral moves are justified if
they will result in promotion/ long
term success in near future.
There should a proper mix
between lateral and upward
movement while switching
companies.

Scope / Assumptions

During the initial years of career growth , lateral moves may not be

Lower cadre employees and

justified. One will try to quickly change jobs in search of better title
and salary.
Changing ones functional department can actually backfire the
growth prospect of an employee. S/He may not be having requisite
skills for that domain and will land on the left side of the bell curve
during Annual Appraisals.

contract workers would only look


for salary while changing jobs.
They dont give any importance
to change in title/Better
designation.

Fallacy 2. A move should be a


move up

Fallacy 3. Big Fish Swim in Big Ponds


Description

Suggestions

Top MNCs generally recruit from similar cultured firms in


search of high-quality employees.
But this leads them to offering very high salaries and
recruit from a limited set of applications.
Statistics suggest otherwise, since many employees in
such companies move to smaller firms in search of better
positions and ease of climbing the hierarchical ladder.
On the other side , employees moving to organisations
with higher reputation are ready to accept a lower
designation as compared to their present role

At early stage of the career


, try and get into a Top firm. As
one progresses , decision to
move to a smaller firm can be
taken.
Transfer to a lesser company
only of career opportunity is
very attractive. Also check in
for cultural match with the
new firm..

Theoretical/ Practical Inconsistencies

Scope / Assumptions

It is not necessary that moving to a smaller firm will offer better

This argument is valid only when

opportunities. Examples can be cited where moving to a smaller has


damaged the prospects for career enhancement.
There can be huge cultural difference between a big and a smaller
firm. An employee can end up in a firm where his personal values and
organisational culture may clash, thereby leading to employee
unsatisfaction.

, one has reached a high / mid level


position in a Big firm.
New employees would prefer
joining a bigger/global firm to add
brand value and for better career
prospects

Fallacy 3. Big Fish Swim in Big


Ponds

Fallacy 4. Career and Industry Switchers are Penalized


Description

Suggestions

Career switchers are not that penalized in terms of

Rather than moving into a


similar company, move to a
different industry where you
can deploy your skill set more
efficiently
A transitional job can also
be considered as it can help to
achieve ones career goals in
long term

promotions as those who stick to one field or specialize


Statistics suggest that among all moves, 29% of moves
are across industries and 23% are across different
segments of same industry
Firms hire employees from a different industry as it
offers a superior human capital specialised in a particular
skill set
Hiring from a different industry may also be cost
efficient to a firm. For example investment banking
industry where there is a shortage in talented employees

Theoretical/ Practical Inconsistencies

Scope / Assumptions

Changing Industry to work can leave a employee


paralysed. A experienced person may become as good as a
fresher.
To hire from different segment, a company has to
broaden its searches, thereby increasing the costs.

Career switches to different


industry is possible only when atleast
some similar KSA is required in both
jobs.
Top managers has to mostly deal
with administrative part of the
business. It can be fruitful for them to
change industry altogether. But for low
level employees specializing in
technical skills , changing industry
altogether can be very challenging.

Fallacy 4. Career and Industry Switchers are


Penalized

Thank You

You might also like