Job Hoppers Aren’t the Problem. Your Hiring Mindset Is.

In this episode, Edan Haddock takes aim at one of the most outdated beliefs in hiring: that candidates who “move around a lot” are a problem.

What if they’re not?

From the collapse of traditional career paths to the rise of Workforce 5.0 and portfolio careers, Edan explores why the idea of loyalty tied to tenure no longer holds up and why Talent leaders might be filtering out exactly the people they need.

This isn’t about defending job hoppers.
It’s about questioning the system that labels them.

If you’re still using tenure as a proxy for performance, potential, or commitment… this episode might change how you hire forever.

Join the Edan Haddock - Total Talent community (formerly Rubberband)

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:51

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Eden Haddock Total Talent. I'm your host, Eden Haddock, Head of Talent and People Experience at November. As usual, I wanted to talk today about something, you know, has been been sitting around in my mind for a while. It's one of those things that just keeps popping up in our work. It pops up in hiring conversations, in interview debriefs, in leadership meetings. And every time I hear it, I pause. And I always have, not because it's new, but because it's so old. And yet we still treat it like it's a fact. I'll quote, hmm, I don't know. They've moved around a lot. You've heard it. You've probably said it. And if you're honest, you've probably felt it. You know that that slight hesitation when you see a CV with six months, twelve months, eighteen months, perhaps two years? Move, move, move. And something in the back of your brain goes, risk. So this is what I want to explore today. What if that instinct is completely outdated? What if we're judging modern talent with a lens that was built for a world that simply doesn't exist anymore? Because when I look at the world right now, when I look at Workforce 5.0, when I look at Gen Z, when I look at how people actually want to work, I'm starting to think perhaps we've got it backwards. So today we're going to pull this apart. The idea of job hoppers, the obsession with tenure, and the mythical loyal employee. We're going to talk about why people used to stay for decades, why that world is gone, the rise of portfolio careers, the three-year engagement cliff, and whether a rotating workforce is actually optimal. And yeah, we'll talk about November too. Because I think we are doing some interesting work here and something a bit different. And maybe maybe it's something closer to where the world is heading. So no answers today, just questions. But I promise you this: by the end of the episode, you won't look at a job hopper the same way again. Let's rewind. Because to understand why this bias exists, we've got to understand where it came from. There was a time, not that long ago, where staying in one company for twenty, thirty, and even forty years wasn't just normal. It was the goal. Your identity was tied to your employer. You joined as a graduate, you climbed the ladder, and you got your gold watch at the end. Done. And organizations, they were built for that. Structured hierarchies, clear progression pathways, defined roles, and stability. And in return, you gave loyalty. And you got security. But here's what's interesting. That model only worked because the world moved slowly. Skills didn't expire overnight. Technology didn't disrupt entire industries every eighteen months. You could build a career by going deep in one place. But fast forward to now, and that entire contract is broken. Now we've got a new generation entering the workforce. And they're not broken. They're not impatient. They're not entitled. They're responding to reality. Gen Z has grown up in a world where nothing is stable. Jobs disappear, industry shift, AI changes everything. So instead of asking, how do I stay somewhere forever? They're actually asking, How do I stay relevant? And the answer to this is move, learn, adapt, repeat. And this is where Workforce 5.0 comes in. Because we're not just talking about generational change. We're talking about a completely different relationship with work. Work is no longer a place you go, it's a portfolio you build. Multiple experiences, different environments, stacked skills, short cycles. And suddenly that CV that used to look risky starts to look strategic. Let's talk about this properly. Portfolio careers. Because I think this is where a lot of talent teams are still playing catch up. The idea that someone might work full-time somewhere for 18 months, consult on the side, build something of their own, jump into a contract, then move again. And instead of that being chaos, it's actually design a deliberate strategy to build breadth, to stay fresh, to stay in demand. And honestly, some of the best people I've met work like this. They don't attach their identity to one organization, they attach it to impact. And this is where I think Movember does something really interesting. Because we actually don't expect everyone to stay forever. In fact, we don't design for that. What we do say is come here, do something meaningful, have impact. And if that's for one year, two years, three years, that's okay. And it's okay to be beyond that as well. But the reality here is some people want a portfolio good. That's how I describe it. They want to say, I spent time at Movember and I did something that mattered. And honestly, I think that's powerful. The problem with tenure as a signal, let's challenge this directly. Why do we care about tenure? Because we think it signals commitment, stability, and performance. But does it? Let's be honest, we've all seen people stay in roles for ten years and mentally check out after the first two. We've seen low performers with long tenure. We've seen high performers with short tenure. So what are we actually measuring? Are we measuring time or are we measuring impact? Because they're not the same thing. And yet we still use tenure as a shortcut. It's easy, it feels safe, but it's lazy. It's something I keep coming back to the three year mark. In most organizations, engagement peaks early. Year one, learning. Year two, contributing. Year three, plateau. And then what happens? Stagnation? Comfort or disengagement? So I wanna I want to ask the uncomfortable question. If most people disengage after three years, why are we so obsessed with keeping them longer? And flip that. What if a three-year cycle is actually optimal? Learn, contribute, impact, move. Is that so bad? Or is that just different? There are pros and cons of movers, of course. So let's balance this because it's not black and white. The pros, fresh thinking, adaptability, broad experience, faster learning cycles, lower complacency. But then the cons. Less institutional knowledge, potential for shallow impact, higher onboarding costs, and team continuity challenges. So the question isn't are job hoppers good or bad? It's how do we design organizations that work with this reality? Maybe we've been asking the wrong question all along. Instead of how long did they stay? We should be asking, what did they do while they were there, regardless of duration and tenure? What did they build? What changed because of them? What impact did they leave behind? Because that's what actually matters. So next time you hear it, they move around a lot. Pause and ask yourself, is that a risk? Or is that exactly what this world now demands? Because Workforce 5.0 isn't coming. It's here. And the talent teams that win in this new world won't be the ones clinging to the past. They'll be the ones who understand that careers aren't ladders anymore. They're portfolios. And maybe, just maybe, the job hopper is actually the blueprint. I'm Eden Haddock. This is Total Talent. If you this made if this episode made you think, please share it. And maybe send it to someone who still believes tenure equals loyalty. And if you're building talent strategies right now, ask yourself one question Are you hiring for time or for impact? I'll catch you next Friday.