The Five Month Itch

I was at work today, cleaning up a Power Point deck when the urge hit me: I really wanted to go online and see who was hiring.

But, you ask, didn't you just start working? Don't you like your job? Well, yes and yes. But it wouldn't hurt to look, right? Just to see what's out there - you know, keep my options open. (Ahem, just for a minute, just to see how it feels).

I'm a big fan of scapegoats, so I'm going to blame my sudden case of "grass is greener at other companies" on daylight savings time. The sun is just rising when I wake up, and the sky pitch black by the time that I leave work. Is it any wonder that my job seemed to lose a bit of its luster overnight?

Surely, there must be a magical company out there.

A place where I can work on fun and challenging projects while effortlessly maintaining work-life balance.

A place where my commute would be under 20 minutes by car. No traffic = no morning road rage = a better way to start the day. (Seriously, suburban traffic is the WORST. I now realize that the opening scene from Office Space was filmed during my morning commute.)

A place that caters lunch every day.

A place that gives me tons of vacation time.

A place that pays me like Bill Gates.

A place where the work is rewarding.

Surely, my list of job qualifications must be realistic. And also highly attainable. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that even if I switched roles, about five months into the next gig, I'd be wondering what else is out there.

Oh. My. God. It never ends, does it?

Now Hiring Mid-Tier Talent

I recently attended a career fair on behalf of my employer and while I was there I did a bit of research.

Finding #1: Trading companies still have the best swag. (Thanks for the Camelbak, poker chip set, and branded ping pong balls!)

Finding #2: Most companies are not switching up their recruiting tactics, even though the dismal economy makes top talent much cheaper than usual. Ivy League grads can be hired today for the same wages that a few years back were barely high enough to draw students from state schools better known for their parties than their academics. And companies are not taking advantage of this. Why?

I posed this question to several recruiters at the fair and they all came back to me with more or less the same explanation: they had higher turnover among the graduates from top-ranked schools. Those employees would work for a year or two, and then move on to opportunities elsewhere. Students from Party U, on the other hand, would stick around for longer. And turnover, of course, is a bad thing so the recruiters primarily stuck with the less well known schools.

Allow me to summarize their argument: it's better to keep mediocre talent around for a longer period of time than to recruit top talent that sticks around for a shorter period of time.

There are certainly costs associated with turnover, but sometimes the higher level of performance will make up for those turnover costs. After all, is it better to get two really good years out of an employee or 10 mediocre years?