The thing is, someone who's going to move on in say a year is going to cause more problems than they solve.
Firstly it means the hiring manager has to redo this whole process again. So if nothing else a problem for him.
Secondly everything the person worked on will have to be moved to someone else - an expensive cost of time.
Thirdly there's typically a reason for them leaving, and they often pollute the workspace with that discontent on their way out.
As an employer it's not hard to find people with sufficient skills. Despite what programmers think it's not tech chops that are unique. Being a "good employee" for lots of definitions of "good" is exactly what I'm looking for.
Honestly I think most managers would rather lose someone with 1 year tenure than 5 years.
One year is plenty of time to make many meaningful contributions, especially if the employee is already experienced. You might not get the super deep knowledge to drive roadmaps and cross team projects. But it's definitely not going to be a net negative unless the employee is just bad (so not likely to make it to a year).
Don't compare the right person staying only one year to the right person staying 3 years. Compre them to no hire, or to the wrong person being hired. Getting amazing people who want to stay with you forever is really rare.
Firstly it means the hiring manager has to redo this whole process again. So if nothing else a problem for him.
Secondly everything the person worked on will have to be moved to someone else - an expensive cost of time.
Thirdly there's typically a reason for them leaving, and they often pollute the workspace with that discontent on their way out.
As an employer it's not hard to find people with sufficient skills. Despite what programmers think it's not tech chops that are unique. Being a "good employee" for lots of definitions of "good" is exactly what I'm looking for.