[eins1234]

If I don't think someone can bring significant value to the business by the second month at the latest, I won't hire them. And if I do hire someone and they don't end up bringing significant value to the business by the second month (or if they end up bringing negative value), then I let them go.

So if they make it even to just month three, it means the hire was well justified. If they leave any time after that, even if it's before their first anniversary, I wish them good luck on their next venture and thank them for the value they brought to the business during their tenure.

The length of their tenure for past positions is completely irrelevant in all of this, so doesn't factor into my hiring decisions at all. Frankly I don't understand why anyone would do any differently.

At the end of the day, I think preferring employees who are "loyal" to past employers is a sign of insecurity on the company/hiring manager's side. It means they secretly think their company is at best only average at retaining great employees, so they resort to biasing towards "loyal" employees as a clutch. I would suggest they work on employee retention instead of disqualifying perfectly good candidates for not having been "loyal" enough in the past.

Employees don't owe any "loyalty" to their employers. It's the employer's job to retain employees. When an employee leaves early, it's almost always because the employer was doing a shitty job at retention.

[club_tropical]

The clear divide in hiring preferences will be if it's owner operated or manager operated. Owner (like I suspect, you) will have clear goals, expectations, and fast ramp-up for the position. Manager wants cog_A in engine_B - predictable, loyal (to the hiring manager & their chain), good at office politics.