The grasshopper thrives in summer. The job hopper is likewise happiest when the economy is bustling. Today, in countries like India and China, job hopping has become an accepted part of corporate life.

Consider first the scene in China. Says a report from the Los Angeles Times: “On the day after the weeklong Chinese New Year holiday, Zhu Aihua went back to work to find that seven desks around hers had been emptied. Her colleagues at an Internet company in Guangzhou had removed their tea mugs, pictures and other personal belongings. They hadn’t taken an extended vacation. They had bolted.

“Similar scenes are playing out at workplaces across China, which is in the throes of a job hopping crisis. Amid booming economic growth and an erosion of traditional values, this land of the socialist ‘iron rice bowl’ ? where people once served their state-owned employers until death ? has become a revolving-door society. China’s overall turnover rate jumped to a record 14 per cent in 2005 from 8 per cent in 2000, according to a survey by consulting firm Hewitt Associates. That doesn’t include people who were terminated. The current turnover rate in the US is about 3 per cent, including firings.”

The Hewitt survey does not put India and China right at the top. But the countries ahead are much smaller economies. Says Hewitt: “Attrition is a growing concern in Asia, and rates rose in most markets. The highest employee turnover rate was recorded in the Philippines at 18.1 per cent. Other markets with high turnover rates include Taiwan 17.7 per cent, China 14.4 per cent, Thailand 13.4 per cent, India 13.1 per cent, and Singapore 13 per cent.”

Two years ago, these columns had reported that job hopping was becoming more acceptable in India. That was before these days of gung-ho growth and the new confidence amongst Indians of all hues. “Today, job hopping is not only tolerated, it is encouraged,” says Mumbai-based HR consultant D. Singh. “In areas like aviation and retail, it is rampant. Some of the early companies are functioning as training institutes for the industry.”

The traditional arguments against job hopping remain. They will occupy centrestage once more when the economy slows down. But management thinkers have begun making a distinction between job hopping from the individual point of view and job hopping from an overall industry and economy perspective. Though it seems contradictory (How can you have job hopping without job hoppers?), individual job hoppers are regarded in a negative light while job hopping itself is good.

One need not go into the reasons why job hoppers are treated with suspicion (see box). But the other side of the argument needs some explanation. Job hoppers, it is now contended, lead to the spread of knowledge and, as a result, innovation. This is obvious when it comes to hi-tech industries. But even the foreman on the shopfloor could bring along with him time and cost saving practices when he switches companies.

Ronald Gilson of the Stanford Law School compares the success of California’s Silicon Valley with Route 128 outside Boston (Massachusetts). Both started on an equal footing. But Massachusetts has a non-compete law (which prevents senior employees from leaving one concern and joining another in an allied line of business) while California doesn’t. Inter-firm employee mobility (job hopping to the layman), says Gilson, is critical “in facilitating second-stage agglomeration economies: those that allow the district to transcend its original product cycle and reinvent itself”. In other words, job hopping catalyses the spread of knowledge in the economy and encourages the growth of new firms in similar businesses.

Professional job hoppers take note. You finally have a solid argument to present at your next job interview and not just the tired old “The grasshopper on the other side is greener”.

THE CASE AGAINST

Why serial job hopping is regarded as negative

• A perception of volatility. It is a considerable investment for any employer to take on a new hire and train him. As a result, no sane employer wants to take on someone who has a history of disloyalty.

• A perception of incompetence. What else is an employer to think when you have work experience from 10 firms?

• A perception of impropriety. This is similar to incompetence, but much worse. You are not just risky; you are dangerous.

Source: Askmen.com