Sure. When I'm in hiring mode and see a resume like that, a few things come to mind.
First is the cost of hiring. Filling an open position is a lot of work. Sifting at resumes, initial phone screens, three kinds of interview, hiring paperwork, equity paperwork. The longer someone stays, the bigger the denominator on the cost/benefit ratio.
Second is the cost of bringing somebody up to speed. We work in a very specific way (continuous deployment, test-driven development, collective code ownership, pair programming) and learning it takes time. Even if you know all that stuff, the new person still has a ton to learn about the product, the history of the product, and our plans for the future. Again, the cost/benefit ratio improves the longer somebody stays. Especially so if we take a risk on people by, say, hiring somebody who doesn't know our language or our toolset.
Third is the social disruption. When somebody leaves a small company, it has a noticeable effect. That cost is hard to quantify, but it's definitely noticeable.
The fourth thing that comes to mind is something subtler. I think there's at least some correlation between how long people stay and other personality characteristics. For example, if somebody has never held a job very long, I don't have any reason to believe they have the capacity to stick through difficult circumstances.
And the last item is a suspicion of subtle flaws. I'm sure that some people have had a lot of jobs for reasons that are unrelated to them. But then there are the people who are better in the interview than in practice, so they eventually get pushed out. Or the sort who are on their best behavior at the start, but eventually let their personal issues all hang out. Or the sort who are a little grating to start, and end up a lot grating after you've worked closely with them.
So whenever I see a resume like yours, it definitely loses points. It doesn't disqualify somebody outright, but all else equal I'll always take somebody who has demonstrated they can stay at a job.
First is the cost of hiring. Filling an open position is a lot of work. Sifting at resumes, initial phone screens, three kinds of interview, hiring paperwork, equity paperwork. The longer someone stays, the bigger the denominator on the cost/benefit ratio.
Second is the cost of bringing somebody up to speed. We work in a very specific way (continuous deployment, test-driven development, collective code ownership, pair programming) and learning it takes time. Even if you know all that stuff, the new person still has a ton to learn about the product, the history of the product, and our plans for the future. Again, the cost/benefit ratio improves the longer somebody stays. Especially so if we take a risk on people by, say, hiring somebody who doesn't know our language or our toolset.
Third is the social disruption. When somebody leaves a small company, it has a noticeable effect. That cost is hard to quantify, but it's definitely noticeable.
The fourth thing that comes to mind is something subtler. I think there's at least some correlation between how long people stay and other personality characteristics. For example, if somebody has never held a job very long, I don't have any reason to believe they have the capacity to stick through difficult circumstances.
And the last item is a suspicion of subtle flaws. I'm sure that some people have had a lot of jobs for reasons that are unrelated to them. But then there are the people who are better in the interview than in practice, so they eventually get pushed out. Or the sort who are on their best behavior at the start, but eventually let their personal issues all hang out. Or the sort who are a little grating to start, and end up a lot grating after you've worked closely with them.
So whenever I see a resume like yours, it definitely loses points. It doesn't disqualify somebody outright, but all else equal I'll always take somebody who has demonstrated they can stay at a job.