Hopping too many startups in a row?
The last 3 positions I've held have been SWE at relatively small startups. Within 2 years of being at those companies, big changes occurred prompting me to hop for job security (didn't secure next round of funding, C-suite got replaced, etc). For me, this is the nature of startups- fast turnaround and turnover. I thought this was normal until my last interview where a recruiter was looking for stronger explanations as to why I haven't held a position for 3-4 years recently. Being clear that it wasn't a positive sign to them. Is it really that strange, or were they maybe used to bigger company culture and expectations? Not going to risk my own security riding a sinking ship.
Here's the thing: you don't really get to see the consequences of your decisions until 3yr after you've made them.
While it's perfectly understandable why you've responded to the changing environment of startups, the lack of holding a position for long enough is a career-limiting move.
It sucks, but the world isn't fair.
It's not you, it's the recruiters.
There is a wide cultural chasm between the startup world and established companies. The recruiters I have come across have very little real world experience. They are merely ticking boxes as handed down to them by management. So if management wants to hire people with a "solid" track record, then your startup experiences are going to be viewed negatively.
Meanwhile I've had 10 years of experience before my current job, only one of which is longer than a year. It's the nature of startups. I don't think it was ever held against me. If anything, some were only evaluating FAANG-style experience (usually ex-FAANG managers), but I wouldn't qualify for those anyway.
I would say riding a sinking ship is a negative for an employee - it's a world of pivots and rapid change. You shouldn't be too loyal to an idea, and likely that extends to loyalty to a company. For a founder level person, they are expected to see it through to the end, and do graceful shutdowns when it is doomed.
The recruiter perspective has some relevance too.
A question in their minds is whether candidates have the tenacity to stick through ups and downs of a company. This happens very frequently and I guess the employers are trying to gauge whether people will up and leave the moment things get difficult.
it may merit some nuanced explanation when such a question comes up.
[flagged]
[flagged]