Over the past four years, a friend of mine has changed jobs nearly five times, moving across organisations and regions within the country, often in rapid succession. His last three transitions occurred within a span of less than twenty months. While such movement is often framed as ambition or career acceleration, it also reflects the growing strain on HR teams operating under relentless pressure to fill roles quickly amid rising attrition.
His first departure was driven by a sense of stagnation at Company A, prompting a move to Company B. Within a year, the role felt repetitive, leading to another exit. He then joined Company C, where concerns about his working style were formally raised by a subordinate with the HR team. Rather than engaging with the feedback or attempting resolution, he chose to resign, a decision enabled by a job market increasingly willing to prioritise speed over scrutiny.
At Company D, the role lacked clarity, but the organisation’s brand value and the urgency on both sides to close the position made the offer appealing. Within a year, familiar challenges emerged. Differences with his manager surfaced and, once again, instead of addressing them, he moved on.
He later returned to Company A, influenced largely by a higher compensation package. However, the role was misaligned with his capabilities, with business development forming its core despite this not being his strength. Within six months, the situation deteriorated. Once again, strained managerial relationships followed, and the search for another opportunity began. Eventually, he returned to Company C, reflecting that leaving nearly twenty months earlier had been a misstep.
This pattern raises several uncomfortable but necessary questions:
- Is the candidate selection and assessment process being compromised by the pressure to hire fast? Are organisations, constrained by time limitations and immediate business needs, appointing individuals who do not truly align with their objectives?
- Are some professionals so eager to avoid confrontation that they choose to escape the current issue rather than address it constructively?
- Why would a company choose to hire someone who has been unable to resolve a straightforward issue at the mid-management level? Is this a reflection of talent scarcity, or does it point to weaknesses within recruitment teams and evaluation frameworks?
- If Companies A and C considered the individual critical to their plans, why were they prepared to let him resign in the first place?
- Are organisations spending disproportionate time discussing new technologies and future-of-work strategies while neglecting the fundamentals of recruitment discipline and corporate culture?
- Do workplaces require a renewed focus on the basics of hiring judgement, role clarity and managerial capability?
- Should individuals who consistently evade responsibility continue to be rewarded with repeated opportunities?
Compounding the issue is the significant cost of rapid hiring. Companies spend heavily on search firms, interview panels, assessments, onboarding and training. When misaligned hires exit quickly, these investments are effectively lost, pushing HR back into replacement mode while teams absorb the disruption of constant change.
This is not an isolated case but a pattern playing out across sectors. It recalls the dynamics of gully cricket, where the person with the bat and ball dictated the game and could walk away at will. In today’s labour market, frequent job movers often wield similar leverage.
The risk is that, if this cycle continues unchecked, organisations may normalise avoidance over accountability and urgency over judgement. For HR leaders already under intense pressure, the challenge is no longer just hiring fast, but hiring right, even when the system rewards speed.
Source – https://www.bwpeople.in/article/when-job-hopping-meets-hasty-hiring-585296