11 ms·

Ask HN: Is long-term employee commitment to the same company still appreciated?

I often times see a Linkedin/resume of a senior engineer where they have jumped ship every couple of months, staying max <=2 years in every company they have worked at. Imho, I always thought this was a red flag during the hiring process at a new company, as it doesn't show any long term commitment. I can understand junior/graduate employees jumping ship often in the beginning, but for +10 YOE software engineers, I find it odd. In contrast, staying too long at a single place could make it seem like a developer doesn't want any changes. What is your opinion on this?

yuppie_scum 4y ago
I’ve tremendously increased my salary, WLB and quality of work life by jumping every 3-4 years. Maybe if my junior roles had provided me with more of that earlier on, I would have been more inclined to stick around.
joshxyz 4y ago
as long as you bring in more money on the door compared to what you cost them in your salary, yes. it's a business.
Spooky23 4y ago
It’s valuable if you are valued. I’ve been with the same place for many years, but moved up the ranks and have a job that pretty much the perfect role for me. If I was toiling away hoping for a 3% raise, I’d have peeled out years ago.
nokya 4y ago
From my personal experience hiring people, frequent job switchers are much easier to evaluate and tell me a much clearer story about how they will contribute to the company. I know they'll likely leave after 2-3 years and knowing this allows me to prepare and organize the team in a way that a departure is not seen as failure but rather as normal evolution. Candidates who stayed +5 years at the same company, even more those who worked under the same manager, typically trigger yellow flags during my hiring process: 1) What is the precise reason for the departure and how am I proposing something better? 2) Has the candidate reached a tipping point, either emotionally or physically (e.g., exhaustion, mental breakdown, etc.) and what is the stage of that crisis? 3) Has the candidate's personal life taken a turn recently? (e.g. newborn, death, difficult marriage, sickness in the family, unbearable debt, etc.)? 4) Did the candidate leave because the employer could not offer the right salary (easiest cases)? 5) Did the candidate leave because there weren't any or acceptable opportunities for evolution (easy to understand, but difficult to solve)? Etc. With frequent job switchers, I don't usually dig too much. I assume that I can easily fire them whenever I'm not satisfied, it goes both ways.
cpach 4y ago
Link to related discussion, for posterity https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342
breckenedge 4y ago
It’s fine.
dataminded 4y ago
Do what works for you.
Fatnino 4y ago
Why would anyone have a long term commitment to a company that doesn't reciprocate?
nsgi 4y ago
Jumping ship every couple of months is concerning, but as long as you're not doing that better to do what works for you rather than worrying about what might look better to a hypothetical future employer. The main problem with staying at one place too long is getting compensated fairly
ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
Most companies are the same and have very little differentiators. Working at Google or Facebook is the same. So jumping around makes sense since that improves salary a lot more than staying put. Every now and then you do find a company which has no alternatives like SpaceX or Renaissance Technologies or Steam. People don't leave those easily.
coolestguy 4y ago
The only thing that modern day companies value is decreased expenses so if someone has been with the same company for 5+ years it's very likely they are underpaid.
codegeek 4y ago
There is no right or wrong answer but I personally do prefer to see some stability at least at 1-2 companies if you are senior. Reason is that unless you have spent at least 2-3 years at one company/team, you haven't come across bad stuff like tech debt, things becoming more complex/stale, data challenges, version/compatibility issues etc etc. If you keep jumping ship every 1-2 years, it tells me you have never worked on those challenging/boring issues and I wouldn't want you on my team. It is much easier to work on shiny stuff and jump ship than taking ownership of crappy stuff. Remember, what is shiny initially can become crappy over time and I want engineers who have been through all of it. Not just the good parts.
- zerr 4y ago
  > bad stuff like tech debt, things becoming more complex/stale, data challenges, version/compatibility issues etc You are missing the (most common) case that those bad stuff are already there when you join the new company. Switching jobs doesn't automatically mean starting from a clean slate.
  - codegeek 4y ago
    Yes that is a good point. But my overall point remains. I ideally want to see a Senior Candidate gone through the entire lifecycle.
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    "The grass is never greener, it's just different"
  - frant-hartm 4y ago
    But usually you won't be put on the worst and most difficult pieces from the start at a new company.
  - cirgue 4y ago
    At that point you’re cleaning up other people’s mistakes, which is a very different beast than having to clean up your own.
junipertea 4y ago
Finanically, it's probably a bad move. But I am happy at my current job (4th year in) and I'm getting steady promotions and progress. Over the years my impact increased dramatically and I don't think I would've done anything as significant if I left by end of my second year. I don't see a person jumping ship every 2 years as a liability, as long as they onboard quickly and get their job done. It's always great to retain more knowledge but we move on if it doesn't.
comprev 4y ago
For future employers, what have you done in the many years being in one place? Can you show career progression, taking on more responsibilities (going upwards) or wearing more hats (going outwards) ? Those who job hop every 2-3yrs do so (usually) for career advancement and nice pay bumps along the way. The salary bumps are unlikely to match if they stayed at one place.
myleshenderson 4y ago
Not my opinion, but I read these earlier today. https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/14/when-is-short-tenure-a-red-flag/ https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/14/when-is-short-tenure-a-red-... with HN thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342 https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/20/tenure-and-seniority/ https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/20/tenure-and-seniority/
NKosmatos 4y ago
Well, depends. Are you asking if it’s appreciated by the same company or by other recruiters/companies? Being at the same company 20 years (in a few months actually), I think that yes, commitment and “loyalty” are appreciated. I’ve had questions from recruiters asking me why I've stayed that long in my current company and I’ve heard good comments from others about how I stayed and climbed through internal positions. I have to admit that if you stay many years at the same company, you’re going to lose money, but it all comes down to balancing: amount of work/personal time/money/career goals.
exolymph 4y ago
Appreciated in the form of good feelings from your manager and teammates, yes. Appreciated in terms of financial remuneration? Less likely.
fdr 4y ago
A max of two years over a career of some length (so, presuming there are numerous shorter entries) seems pretty short to me, though two years rates as perfectly respectable tour of duty. On the other hand, by three years, I stop issuing any credit for the marginal year. At extremely long tenures I'll be curious to see if the candidate appears stunted for having operated in one bureaucracy for so long. Though, "appreciation" has nothing to do with it, it's really about the somewhat fixed overheads of integration, de-integration, and re-hiring. My sensibilities would be different if costs were higher (desiring longer tenures) or lower (more relaxed on even shorter tenures).
rbosinger 4y ago
I still consider this when hiring. I don't necessarily see a 10 year tenancy as major bonus points but do consider a flurry of short full time gigs to be a red flag. It's not about loyalty so much as that often it can take 6+ months to really get productive amongst an existing codebase and culture. That's also the point where the developer might really start to drive on more intense projects. If they're always leaving before this point that's great for them but not so much for us.
gwbas1c 4y ago
During my last job search, my long tenure (almost a decade) in a single role was considered extremely valuable. I was most attractive to companies looking to hire someone who would become a resident expert. On the other hand, I've had to make it known to my current employer that they need to pay me well in order for me to stay for a long time. IMO: Tenure at a company should increase with experience. It's hard to do monumental software engineering in a short stint; but there are often good reasons to "get in and get out" too. IE, it's good for someone to have shorter tenures early in their career, as they're still understanding the industry. Very few of us are lucky enough to have an entry-level job that we want to turn into our career. Also, it's really hard for a candidate and company to mutually evaluate each other in the interview process, so short stints for an experienced software engineer will happen. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that someone who stays in a job for a long time is underpaid or doesn't like change: These are the people who often develop into the archetypes described here: https://lethain.com/staff-engineer-archetypes/ https://lethain.com/staff-engineer-archetypes/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33112915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33112915)
- PainfullyNormal 4y ago
  > On the other hand, I've had to make it known to my current employer that they need to pay me well in order for me to stay for a long time. This is the primary problem. American companies aren't willing to give 100% raises year after year to keep up with their competition and retain their employees.
- silisili 4y ago
  I had the exact same experience in my recent job search. The interview process was also wildly different than most, just a few mostly casual conversations. All of that said, I probably left a ton of money on the table by not grinding for money in my 20s.
Apreche 4y ago
I stayed at one of my jobs for 8-10 years. There might be a company out there that appreciates it. There might be a company out there that rewards it. I haven't experienced either of those things. I was convinced by everyone else's horror stories that my job was so great, and I wouldn't find a better one. I should have changed jobs more often. Every 2 years like you say, would have been about right.
lordnacho 4y ago
You often can't tell from a CV why the person moved on. Did the company they worked for go down? Did some employer offer them a deal they couldn't refuse? You can't assume they just decided to stay looking for the next thing of their of accord. These kinds of things happen all the time to people, so just looking at the lengths didn't tell you much.
traceroute66 4y ago
As I see it, you need to factor in the chain of employers too. For example, its easy to be a "dead wood" employee at a large employer. You can stay there as long as you like, and get away with not doing much - in relative terms, I'm not talking literally twiddling your thumbs as the years pass by ! Meanwhile long service at SME size companies is worth more because there is nowhere to hide. On the short side of the spectrum, absolutely without any doubt whatsoever, anything less than 2/3 years pattern is a MAJOR alarm bell. Why ? Because less than 12 months basically means you keep getting fired on your probation periods and you probably should not be touched with a bargepole. Less than 24 months and it sort of smells like itchy feet syndrome. So (IMHO) 3–5 years is sort of the sweet spot in tech. It shows you have a degree of loyalty, but also want to keep one eye on career progression - assuming your CV clearly reads like career progression, not ship jumping !
karaterobot 4y ago
I have trouble communicating to my parents, who are in their 80s and worked for the same company for 35 years, that me switching jobs every couple years is the norm for my industry, and not a sign that I'm a troublemaker, or anything like that. A lot of people switch jobs frequently because they feel it's the only way to advance, or at least the most cost efficient way. That's not the case for me: I would love to find a place to work for the next 20 years, and if they give me cost-of-living increases and the occasional attaboy raise, I'm not asking for more than that. I make plenty of money, am not looking for a fancy title, and run the other direction from leadership positions. I don't even care about "solving interesting problems at scale" or whatever people say they're chasing. BUT, the reality is, I haven't found a good company — one where I think I'd like to stick around due to culture and stability and so on — and in this industry we have the option to move on without penalty. So, why not do that, until the right company shows up?
- scruple 4y ago
  I've been inside of 2 such companies. Over time, they both changed (for the worst) and I left (along with many others). My tenure in both was 6.5 years and 8.5 years, respectively. If I had had any degree of confidence that management could or would have fixed the culture problems the organizations were experiencing, I'd have stuck it out. In fact, in the case of the second employer, that actually did happen, and I stayed specifically because I thought that management could fix the issues and that I could help them. Both of those things were true, and because I was helping us move in the "right" direction, I experienced a ton of professional growth, but then the culture shifted again (we were acquired) and the place simply became inhospitable. I was part of the initial exodus of engineers who left. I've heard from colleagues who have remained that ~50% of engineering has turned over in the last year. I suspect that I will have some short tenures (1-2 years max) on my resume now, as I try to navigate my way through to another long tenure employer.
npalli 4y ago
A "senior" engineer who has moved 5 times in 10 years staying less than 2 years in any company has five times the experience of a junior engineer. So, they have no understanding of making longer term decisions and seeing things through. Absolutely a red flag if you want to do something longer term. A few < 2 year stints are OK, mistakes happen. Serial jumping is bad and was only possible in an environment of zero interest, free capital madness from 2009 to 2021. On the other hand, if you just want something done in a short term frame, might not be a bad deal. Don't pay "senior" salary or put them on strategic longer term projects, they are a very experienced junior engineer.
- tester756 4y ago
  I disagree. 2 years is often enough to see whether design/approach has failed and what were the implications. Unless you're doing very specific things like programming language design, operating system design, then why would you need e.g half of decade to figure out what went wrong? So, whether X years is enough is dependent on what are you doing. SpaceX? probably it isn't enough, web dev? probably it is.
  - shalmanese 4y ago
    Yeah, but insights occur in parallel. Let's assume that you get the moment of insight 2 years after a initiative launch and you launch one new initiative every 6 months. After 2 years, you've seen one insight or 0.5 insights/year. After 3 years, you've seen 3 insights or 1 insight/year. After 5 years, 7 insights and 1.4 insights/year. 10 years, 17 insights, 1.7 insights/year. The rate asymptotes but there's still significant benefit for a tenure of 3 - 5 years.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  > So, they have no understanding of making longer term decisions Disagree. Coming into a new company and seeing the results of decisions that were made before you started can be quite informative.
- FredPret 4y ago
  If companies want tenure, they have to pay up. But they don’t pay for it, because they don’t want it. Think about it from the owners’ POV: healthy turnover gives you a constant stress test for the system that is your business. You need systems that are able to hire, ramp up, and train people. Sure, you need a few key people that keep lots of detail and skill in their heads, but relying on that at scale is no way to run a business.
1970-01-01 4y ago
Every 4-6 years is about right.
lefstathiou 4y ago
Hopping around is a red flag for our hiring process across every role (especially enterprise sales, which is my area of expertise). There are lots of little things it can indicate, all of which have legitimate exceptions that the folks on HN can point out. Ultimately a judgment call on your part. For every rule, there are many exceptions. Choose wisely.
zerr 4y ago
Considering an average lifespan of a human, spending 1-2 years on somebody else's dream is more than enough.
commitpizza 4y ago
No, I don't believe it is. If you stay you won't be more appreciated, get a higher salary or other benefits. I have rather seen the opposite. Each time I have switched companies I've always gotten big pay rise. If I wouldn't I would still be earning like half of what I make today. The issue is that companies rewards moving every 2 years and as long as that is the case, that is probably what I will do.
darepublic 4y ago
My history is like this and I feel the same way as OP, it's not exactly a great sign. On the other hand I have seen how long term tenure in a company can correlate (in my experience) with complacency and rent seeking type behaviour
kodah 4y ago
I'm a pretty senior engineer. I've never been promoted at a company. I've never even received a substantial raise. It's also not like I wasn't doing the things they wanted. If you're pretty senior, try moving every 3-5 years. If you're less than that try to stick out a year. There's exceptions, but honestly just be able to talk about why you did it. For instance, when I got out of the military I was chronically underpaid in tech during a time when it was okay for companies to ask my previous salary while also being from the South where techies make substantially less than average. I left companies once a year for nearly four years. They knew what the deal was, they were getting a deal on my talents but knew I wasn't passionate about their stuff.
- heywire 4y ago
  Counterpoint, I am also a senior engineer. I was hired as an L1 support specialist talking with end users almost 20 years ago. I was promoted through the ranks of support followed by software development. Over that time, my salary has increased more than 4x. My current salary is comparable to what I could get elsewhere in my area. Could I have done better had I jumped ship every couple of years, maybe. But I love my job and the people I work with. I’ve been working with some of the same people this whole time.
  - wikibob 4y ago
    A data point you may find useful: If your salary has only increased 4x over what you made doing tier 1 support it is likely you are leaving a massive amount of money on the table. Check https://levels.fyi https://levels.fyi Now you might not be willing to do the work to pass interviews at higher paying companies. That’s fine too, but I wanted to make sure you know what the actual numbers are.
    - heywire 4y ago
      I’ve interviewed over the years and kept touch with colleagues who went elsewhere. There are certainly tracks I could have taken to raise my salary more aggressively, but at my current salary, I wouldn’t call it a massive amount of money. I’m currently between the 75th and 90th percentile for my area according to the site you provided (closer 90th than the 75th). I have a low stress 8-5 job that allows me to spend time with my family while working on exciting projects with experts in our field who have become like family to me. I’m not earning Silicon Valley money, but I’m also not paying Silicon Valley prices here in Ohio either :).
blakesterz 4y ago
YES, I always look for length of employment on a resume. If someone is consistently only at a place for a year, to me that looks bad. I don't want to go through all this work hiring someone only to have them leave in a year.
frant-hartm 4y ago
If I see more than 2 or more short positions (<=2y) I just bin the CV. Mistakes can happen, but more than 2 is a red flag for me. With the exception of being a real contractor, but this is sometimes difficult to say from CV if it was a real fixed time contract (e.g. quite common in UK), or just tax saving arrangement (common in Poland). Also at least one long position is a bonus, shows the person will stay given the right circumstances.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  A career with 10 places and two under 2 years seems reasonable.
- odshoifsdhfs 4y ago
  Do you also give 40-50% raises to your employees every 2 years? Everyone knows that you can and get those pay bumps if you switch jobs, but want to penalise it. I will say this differently, if you see short stints as a bad thing, there are two options: 1) you want to explore people that have difficulties negotiating/interviewing 2) you will hire dumb people (because unless you are curing cancer, anyone that rejects 20-50% pay bumps every couple years is just dumb)
zwieback 4y ago
I jumped companies every few years early in my career but have been at a megacorp for over 20 years now. In that time I've done vastly different types of projects so that also needs to be a consideration. At a large company with a varied product spectrum you can not only work on different types things you can also change job descriptions or even get a new degree and completely change what you do.
twawaaay 4y ago
Kinda depends on what you do and where you do it. Unfortunately, most middle management in most companies stopped caring, hide behind processes and would like to treat employees as commodity. And most upper management are either powerless or uninformed and in most cases both. And both would prefer to use any budget increase to hire new employees rather than compensate the ones they already have. As to software engineers, over the years of interviewing (but also changing jobs myself) I changed my attitude. My new thinking is that if the company does not value staying loyal when their engineers are quickly getting experience and increasing their value on the job market, when changing job is the only option to get your salary corrected to reflect your market realities, then I cannot fault the person for changing jobs rapidly. So rather than penalise people for being disloyal, I am asking probing questions, dig a bit into their explanations, the types of projects they were working on, and see if their progression and explanations check out.
veryfancy 4y ago
I think it’s generally easier to get a promotion and/or a big raise by hopping. I used to think frequent hops would yield a sketchy history on the resume, but my sense is that it’s becoming less unusual.
sho_hn 4y ago
It depends. I work in an industry (automotive infotainment) that makes very complex products where entire product cycles take 2-4 years and projects run for 6+ years. There's valuable stuff to learn from experience in every phase of a cycle. Having seen at least a full cycle can be a very useful flag for seniority. It's not a requirement per se, however. Fresh/outside thinking can also contribute much.
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
Appreciated by whom? "The company" can't appreciate anything: it's just a corporate structure. In a privately owned company, the owner may appreciate it, or they may just want you gone. Depends on your performance. Working for a large corporation, I got the promotions and the every 5 years gifts but they were by and large meaningless. I don't really think anyone cares about long term commitment. I was asked once to stay at least a year because recruiting me was very expensive and they wanted to get their money's worth. I appreciated the frankness of the request.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  > "The company" can't appreciate anything: it's just a corporate structure. Does the company regularly¹ adjust worker wages to account for inflation and employee growth? (I.e., a two-year tenure employee should be worth more than a 0-year employee simply because they know how stuff in the company functions. I.e., they don't need to be trained!) That, in rough English, is "appreciating" it. Yes, normally, there's some lip service the company will give, but actual rewards in the form of compensation is the real "appreciation". But a surprising number of employers, AFAICT, don't do that. Shockingly, SWEs tend to jump ship a bit after 2 years of not getting anywhere. (And write their own salary adjustments on the jump.) It's incredibly detrimental to continually hemorrage that experience, but I feel like places I've been at don't get it for two reasons: management is too disconnected to know it, and it's all they've ever known, so they don't know how bad it is, as they've no relative basis to judge. Dunning–Kruger, essentially. ¹I'd argue yearly, but at least bi-yearly.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    I pointed out to my boss once that the percentage range that I was approved to allocate to raises for my direct reports was less than inflation and it amounted to a pay cut. He shrugged.
at_a_remove 4y ago
Even in academia, I would say that it is appreciated in a way that, from your perspective, is indistinguishable from not giving a fig. Would The Company like you to stay where you are? Yes! Will it be acted on in any way that you may discern it from complete indifference? No! I mean, who knows, we currently can measure gravitational waves via LIGO, so scientists may eventually create instruments sensitive enough to measure something as miniscule as a company's actionables toward its long-term employees, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
qwemaze 4y ago
Jumping companies is the best way to get a raise, that's the truth for most places. Everything else is just more reasons to do so. Usually that's because you don't actually need a good specialist for a long time. Maintenance could be done by juniors/mids.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  > Maintenance could be done by juniors Sorry, but no. Maintenance requires understanding the code, which requires reading the code. Experienced¹ eng are far more likely to be able to grind through code they didn't write, as they've read more code over the course of their career. ¹actually experienced, i.e., has actually gained knowledge. Not just "has been in the industry for more years" which seems to be frighteningly common.
  - qwemaze 4y ago
    That's true from eng perspective, yes, but try explaining it to an average manager who has a few seniors and a dozen mids/juns for the same cost as seniors. He'll tell you magical "knowledge transfer" and won't think twice about making a raise for seniors and will proceed on hiring people to "transfer" the knowledge to.
zasdffaa 4y ago
Companies want commitment but typically (IME) aren't much interested in reciprocating that commitment, either directly as in valuing you, or indirectly as in giving a damn about managing you properly so you can do your job. So I don't care any more.
didip 4y ago
It depends. Most of the times, you probably should jump around every 3-4 years. That said, I have been at the same company for 7 years and the company has always compensated me well for my hard work.
tristor 4y ago
I have “job-hopped” a lot in my career. But, any time I’ve found a company that treats me well I’ve stayed as long as that was true. I’ve never jumped for money, contrary to popular belief, but rather due to cultural and leadership changes that lead to disrespect towards employees. To this day the best company I’ve ever worked for is a crucial part of my network as my former coworkers respected me greatly and formed a diaspora across the industry after we all left. Unfortunately that company is nearly nonexistent now thanks to mismanagement after a private equity acquisition. I don’t think people “job hop” on a whim, they do it because companies don’t treat employees decently. It’s not necessarily pay, it’s basic respect and autonomy.
dave333 4y ago
Top performers should switch jobs or assignments early and often to gain experience and build a network, and probably should not stay in a job more than 2 years until they are considered senior. Low/marginal performers need to stay in each job long enough (2 years?) to show they can hold it down and are not being let go frequently because of incompetence. Job security has value for these people who are the main beneficiaries of tenure since the more competent don't need tenure, at least until they near retirement. Middle performers can afford to switch a few times but often need to stay 4 years until their options vest. Generally the rewards are higher if you switch frequently up to a point. It's hard to get pay raises that match switching jobs.
dave333 4y ago
My job length history over 40+ year career - looking back I should have worked in startups much earlier and I also missed opportunities like my colleague who joined Microsoft in 1982 when you could walk down the hall to Bill Gates' office. various summer jobs pre-graduation, 2 yrs, 2 yrs, 10 yrs contractor but assigned to same large company, 5 yrs, 5 yrs, 1 yr Dot-com startup #1, 2 yrs Dot-com startup #2, self-unemployed 5 yrs, 5 yrs contract, 6 yrs hired by same company, terminated during company-wide layoffs - retired.
sys_64738 4y ago
I don't want to change as I like the environment I work in already. The job hopper often finds that the grass isn't always greener.
muzani 4y ago
It's one of those things where people think they're the best example. Those who jump ship will talk about how much experience they gained working with lots of different codebases and people. Those who didn't will talk about how much experience they gained solving the deeper problems in a single codebase. Most people do a mix, and thus have mixed opinions. I think it also depends a lot on tech ecosystem where you live too. There's a lot of dead startups where I live. The dream jobs are probably oil and gas jobs, some telco that thinks that having colorful offices will make them the next Google, or a bank with an ATM machine in "the metaverse". I can't imagine that staying too long at these places are a good sign.
holografix 4y ago
No.
silexia 4y ago
Employer here with 270 full time employees. I only promote from within and only hire outsiders to entry level roles. People who have been here a long time are by far the highest compensated.
- jstx1 4y ago
  So when a senior person leaves you replace them with a junior?
bdcravens 4y ago
I think it says more about the companies than it does about the employees.
picsao 4y ago
[dead]
MathMonkeyMan 4y ago
no
gwnywg 4y ago
I work for startup, finishing third year. I joined in quite early stage. Every year I received a package of options that vest 25% every year for 4 years. So the company still expects me to stay for next 4 years. Is 3 years long term employment? For me yes, I used to switch every ~4-5 years, and my current company does a lot to make us stay for longer.
LatteLazy 4y ago
In my experience, no. In fact it's considered a sign of weakness. I was shocked to discover I was earning more than my boss at a company a few years back. His boss laughed and said "he's been here 10 years". Do you want to be that guy? It's been pretty well proven statistically that 2 years (here in the UK, 1.5 in the US) is the optimal time to spend before either leaving or getting a significant promotion. If you leave more than 6m before that, it's too soon (then it is a red flag), if you stay longer you start to earn less. Those are the stats and you cannot argue with them...
mcv 4y ago
Employers that appreciate long-term commitment will show that appreciation with regular raises. If you're not getting regular raises, it's time to look somewhere else. Having to ask for a raise before you get it shows a lack of appreciation. Asking for a raise and having it refused shows a stronger lack of appreciation. Time to move on.
credit_guy 4y ago
Companies are made of people. There's no point of having loyalty to a company, because it's not the "company" that appreciates this loyalty (the company is just an inanimate thing), but your colleagues and managers who can appreciate. But most of these colleagues and managers don't share your loyalty. People jump ships at all levels, including sometimes at the CEO level. So colleagues and managers don't appreciate loyalty per se. But they appreciate competence. And long tenure can increase someone competence in two ways: on one hand many companies sit on top of large and complex systems. With long tenure you not only get to be familiar with these systems, you start to know their history, you have your war stories, are familiar with past solutions to recurring problems, and not least, are able to teach new joiners. And on the other hand, you have an extensive network, which can increase your productivity tremendously, because in many cases the best solution to a problem is not to roll up your sleeves and work on it, but to ask a favor to a friend who can do it ten times faster than you. Because of all these things, you'll see often people with 20 years or more of tenure being considered as pillars of their organization by their peers and managers. Unfortunately, there are sometimes people with long tenure who are not that good, and don't have strong networks (because the strength of a network depends on how often you were able to help someone else). They are just "lifers". Competent enough that it's a headache for managers to replace them (and so they escape various rounds of layoffs), but not so competent to be appreciated and loved by their colleagues. Those people just attained "job security". Nobody appreciates their "loyalty", because it was not actually loyalty that made them stay in the same place.
cbm-vic-20 4y ago
I have been at my company for nearly 25 years, moving up through the engineering ranks and "across" to being a manager. I am pretty sure I've been underpaid for years, and that it has been a mistake for me to stay for so long. This is one of the many reasons I am starting to interview elsewhere (the other reason is that I just survived a layoff so deep I think it irrevocably damaged our ability to deliver our service). I don't know what types of offers I will get, but I will soon find out if that feeling and regret is justified.
giantg2 4y ago
"Is long-term employee commitment to the same company still appreciated?" Not at all. The only thing they appreciate is that you're cheaper than your potential replacement. I have 10 years at the same company and a masters degree. I'm a midlevel dev who was passed over and screwed over a few times.
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  > The only thing they appreciate is that you're cheaper than your potential replacement. And that your potential replacement may take 1-2 years to be as productive as you.
logicalmonster 4y ago
I think it might be a potential question mark if an older engineer habitually spends a short amount of time within companies as there's a possibility that they're harder to get along with or tend to frequently move on before technical debt mounts up. If somebody gets to their mid-late 30s without staying somewhere at least a few years, I'd anticipate them bouncing similarly. That said, I hate the use of the word "commitment" here. If a company hits a rough financial patch, they'll dump the most loyal and committed employee in the blink of an eye to make life easier on themselves. It doesn't matter if you just bought a house or your wife is due for a baby or your kid is suffering from cancer: you're expendable 100% of the time. Tough to use words like commitment or loyalty in that environment.
withinboredom 4y ago
At my last job. I was there for 5.5 years. I changed teams every year or two working in widely varying projects and roles. After leaving, I had a hard time getting my resume to be believable. So I think once you’ve worked somewhere long enough, there’s a good chance much of what you know how to do doesn’t “fit” on a page anymore. So when you see a boring long stint, I wouldn’t trust it. This “I know you’re ‘lying’ to get a job” feeling always applies, but now instead of thinking the applicant did “less” it’s the other way around. You now have to wonder if you will offer enough for their experience and if they’ll get bored.

yuppie_scum 4y ago

I’ve tremendously increased my salary, WLB and quality of work life by jumping every 3-4 years. Maybe if my junior roles had provided me with more of that earlier on, I would have been more inclined to stick around.

joshxyz 4y ago

as long as you bring in more money on the door compared to what you cost them in your salary, yes. it's a business.

Spooky23 4y ago

It’s valuable if you are valued. I’ve been with the same place for many years, but moved up the ranks and have a job that pretty much the perfect role for me. If I was toiling away hoping for a 3% raise, I’d have peeled out years ago.

nokya 4y ago

From my personal experience hiring people, frequent job switchers are much easier to evaluate and tell me a much clearer story about how they will contribute to the company. I know they'll likely leave after 2-3 years and knowing this allows me to prepare and organize the team in a way that a departure is not seen as failure but rather as normal evolution. Candidates who stayed +5 years at the same company, even more those who worked under the same manager, typically trigger yellow flags during my hiring process: 1) What is the precise reason for the departure and how am I proposing something better? 2) Has the candidate reached a tipping point, either emotionally or physically (e.g., exhaustion, mental breakdown, etc.) and what is the stage of that crisis? 3) Has the candidate's personal life taken a turn recently? (e.g. newborn, death, difficult marriage, sickness in the family, unbearable debt, etc.)? 4) Did the candidate leave because the employer could not offer the right salary (easiest cases)? 5) Did the candidate leave because there weren't any or acceptable opportunities for evolution (easy to understand, but difficult to solve)? Etc. With frequent job switchers, I don't usually dig too much. I assume that I can easily fire them whenever I'm not satisfied, it goes both ways.

cpach 4y ago

Link to related discussion, for posterity https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342

breckenedge 4y ago

It’s fine.

dataminded 4y ago

Do what works for you.

Fatnino 4y ago

Why would anyone have a long term commitment to a company that doesn't reciprocate?

nsgi 4y ago

Jumping ship every couple of months is concerning, but as long as you're not doing that better to do what works for you rather than worrying about what might look better to a hypothetical future employer. The main problem with staying at one place too long is getting compensated fairly

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago

Most companies are the same and have very little differentiators. Working at Google or Facebook is the same. So jumping around makes sense since that improves salary a lot more than staying put. Every now and then you do find a company which has no alternatives like SpaceX or Renaissance Technologies or Steam. People don't leave those easily.

coolestguy 4y ago

The only thing that modern day companies value is decreased expenses so if someone has been with the same company for 5+ years it's very likely they are underpaid.

codegeek 4y ago

There is no right or wrong answer but I personally do prefer to see some stability at least at 1-2 companies if you are senior. Reason is that unless you have spent at least 2-3 years at one company/team, you haven't come across bad stuff like tech debt, things becoming more complex/stale, data challenges, version/compatibility issues etc etc. If you keep jumping ship every 1-2 years, it tells me you have never worked on those challenging/boring issues and I wouldn't want you on my team. It is much easier to work on shiny stuff and jump ship than taking ownership of crappy stuff. Remember, what is shiny initially can become crappy over time and I want engineers who have been through all of it. Not just the good parts.

zerr 4y ago
> bad stuff like tech debt, things becoming more complex/stale, data challenges, version/compatibility issues etc You are missing the (most common) case that those bad stuff are already there when you join the new company. Switching jobs doesn't automatically mean starting from a clean slate.
- codegeek 4y ago
  Yes that is a good point. But my overall point remains. I ideally want to see a Senior Candidate gone through the entire lifecycle.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  "The grass is never greener, it's just different"
- frant-hartm 4y ago
  But usually you won't be put on the worst and most difficult pieces from the start at a new company.
- cirgue 4y ago
  At that point you’re cleaning up other people’s mistakes, which is a very different beast than having to clean up your own.

junipertea 4y ago

Finanically, it's probably a bad move. But I am happy at my current job (4th year in) and I'm getting steady promotions and progress. Over the years my impact increased dramatically and I don't think I would've done anything as significant if I left by end of my second year. I don't see a person jumping ship every 2 years as a liability, as long as they onboard quickly and get their job done. It's always great to retain more knowledge but we move on if it doesn't.

comprev 4y ago

For future employers, what have you done in the many years being in one place? Can you show career progression, taking on more responsibilities (going upwards) or wearing more hats (going outwards) ? Those who job hop every 2-3yrs do so (usually) for career advancement and nice pay bumps along the way. The salary bumps are unlikely to match if they stayed at one place.

myleshenderson 4y ago

Not my opinion, but I read these earlier today. https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/14/when-is-short-tenure-a-red-flag/ https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/14/when-is-short-tenure-a-red-... with HN thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33309342 https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/20/tenure-and-seniority/ https://jacobian.org/2022/oct/20/tenure-and-seniority/

NKosmatos 4y ago

Well, depends. Are you asking if it’s appreciated by the same company or by other recruiters/companies? Being at the same company 20 years (in a few months actually), I think that yes, commitment and “loyalty” are appreciated. I’ve had questions from recruiters asking me why I've stayed that long in my current company and I’ve heard good comments from others about how I stayed and climbed through internal positions. I have to admit that if you stay many years at the same company, you’re going to lose money, but it all comes down to balancing: amount of work/personal time/money/career goals.

exolymph 4y ago

Appreciated in the form of good feelings from your manager and teammates, yes. Appreciated in terms of financial remuneration? Less likely.

fdr 4y ago

A max of two years over a career of some length (so, presuming there are numerous shorter entries) seems pretty short to me, though two years rates as perfectly respectable tour of duty. On the other hand, by three years, I stop issuing any credit for the marginal year. At extremely long tenures I'll be curious to see if the candidate appears stunted for having operated in one bureaucracy for so long. Though, "appreciation" has nothing to do with it, it's really about the somewhat fixed overheads of integration, de-integration, and re-hiring. My sensibilities would be different if costs were higher (desiring longer tenures) or lower (more relaxed on even shorter tenures).

rbosinger 4y ago

I still consider this when hiring. I don't necessarily see a 10 year tenancy as major bonus points but do consider a flurry of short full time gigs to be a red flag. It's not about loyalty so much as that often it can take 6+ months to really get productive amongst an existing codebase and culture. That's also the point where the developer might really start to drive on more intense projects. If they're always leaving before this point that's great for them but not so much for us.

gwbas1c 4y ago

During my last job search, my long tenure (almost a decade) in a single role was considered extremely valuable. I was most attractive to companies looking to hire someone who would become a resident expert. On the other hand, I've had to make it known to my current employer that they need to pay me well in order for me to stay for a long time. IMO: Tenure at a company should increase with experience. It's hard to do monumental software engineering in a short stint; but there are often good reasons to "get in and get out" too. IE, it's good for someone to have shorter tenures early in their career, as they're still understanding the industry. Very few of us are lucky enough to have an entry-level job that we want to turn into our career. Also, it's really hard for a candidate and company to mutually evaluate each other in the interview process, so short stints for an experienced software engineer will happen. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that someone who stays in a job for a long time is underpaid or doesn't like change: These are the people who often develop into the archetypes described here: https://lethain.com/staff-engineer-archetypes/ https://lethain.com/staff-engineer-archetypes/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33112915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33112915)

PainfullyNormal 4y ago
> On the other hand, I've had to make it known to my current employer that they need to pay me well in order for me to stay for a long time. This is the primary problem. American companies aren't willing to give 100% raises year after year to keep up with their competition and retain their employees.
silisili 4y ago
I had the exact same experience in my recent job search. The interview process was also wildly different than most, just a few mostly casual conversations. All of that said, I probably left a ton of money on the table by not grinding for money in my 20s.

Apreche 4y ago

I stayed at one of my jobs for 8-10 years. There might be a company out there that appreciates it. There might be a company out there that rewards it. I haven't experienced either of those things. I was convinced by everyone else's horror stories that my job was so great, and I wouldn't find a better one. I should have changed jobs more often. Every 2 years like you say, would have been about right.

lordnacho 4y ago

You often can't tell from a CV why the person moved on. Did the company they worked for go down? Did some employer offer them a deal they couldn't refuse? You can't assume they just decided to stay looking for the next thing of their of accord. These kinds of things happen all the time to people, so just looking at the lengths didn't tell you much.

traceroute66 4y ago

As I see it, you need to factor in the chain of employers too. For example, its easy to be a "dead wood" employee at a large employer. You can stay there as long as you like, and get away with not doing much - in relative terms, I'm not talking literally twiddling your thumbs as the years pass by ! Meanwhile long service at SME size companies is worth more because there is nowhere to hide. On the short side of the spectrum, absolutely without any doubt whatsoever, anything less than 2/3 years pattern is a MAJOR alarm bell. Why ? Because less than 12 months basically means you keep getting fired on your probation periods and you probably should not be touched with a bargepole. Less than 24 months and it sort of smells like itchy feet syndrome. So (IMHO) 3–5 years is sort of the sweet spot in tech. It shows you have a degree of loyalty, but also want to keep one eye on career progression - assuming your CV clearly reads like career progression, not ship jumping !

karaterobot 4y ago

I have trouble communicating to my parents, who are in their 80s and worked for the same company for 35 years, that me switching jobs every couple years is the norm for my industry, and not a sign that I'm a troublemaker, or anything like that. A lot of people switch jobs frequently because they feel it's the only way to advance, or at least the most cost efficient way. That's not the case for me: I would love to find a place to work for the next 20 years, and if they give me cost-of-living increases and the occasional attaboy raise, I'm not asking for more than that. I make plenty of money, am not looking for a fancy title, and run the other direction from leadership positions. I don't even care about "solving interesting problems at scale" or whatever people say they're chasing. BUT, the reality is, I haven't found a good company — one where I think I'd like to stick around due to culture and stability and so on — and in this industry we have the option to move on without penalty. So, why not do that, until the right company shows up?

scruple 4y ago
I've been inside of 2 such companies. Over time, they both changed (for the worst) and I left (along with many others). My tenure in both was 6.5 years and 8.5 years, respectively. If I had had any degree of confidence that management could or would have fixed the culture problems the organizations were experiencing, I'd have stuck it out. In fact, in the case of the second employer, that actually did happen, and I stayed specifically because I thought that management could fix the issues and that I could help them. Both of those things were true, and because I was helping us move in the "right" direction, I experienced a ton of professional growth, but then the culture shifted again (we were acquired) and the place simply became inhospitable. I was part of the initial exodus of engineers who left. I've heard from colleagues who have remained that ~50% of engineering has turned over in the last year. I suspect that I will have some short tenures (1-2 years max) on my resume now, as I try to navigate my way through to another long tenure employer.

npalli 4y ago

A "senior" engineer who has moved 5 times in 10 years staying less than 2 years in any company has five times the experience of a junior engineer. So, they have no understanding of making longer term decisions and seeing things through. Absolutely a red flag if you want to do something longer term. A few < 2 year stints are OK, mistakes happen. Serial jumping is bad and was only possible in an environment of zero interest, free capital madness from 2009 to 2021. On the other hand, if you just want something done in a short term frame, might not be a bad deal. Don't pay "senior" salary or put them on strategic longer term projects, they are a very experienced junior engineer.

tester756 4y ago
I disagree. 2 years is often enough to see whether design/approach has failed and what were the implications. Unless you're doing very specific things like programming language design, operating system design, then why would you need e.g half of decade to figure out what went wrong? So, whether X years is enough is dependent on what are you doing. SpaceX? probably it isn't enough, web dev? probably it is.
- shalmanese 4y ago
  Yeah, but insights occur in parallel. Let's assume that you get the moment of insight 2 years after a initiative launch and you launch one new initiative every 6 months. After 2 years, you've seen one insight or 0.5 insights/year. After 3 years, you've seen 3 insights or 1 insight/year. After 5 years, 7 insights and 1.4 insights/year. 10 years, 17 insights, 1.7 insights/year. The rate asymptotes but there's still significant benefit for a tenure of 3 - 5 years.
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
> So, they have no understanding of making longer term decisions Disagree. Coming into a new company and seeing the results of decisions that were made before you started can be quite informative.
FredPret 4y ago
If companies want tenure, they have to pay up. But they don’t pay for it, because they don’t want it. Think about it from the owners’ POV: healthy turnover gives you a constant stress test for the system that is your business. You need systems that are able to hire, ramp up, and train people. Sure, you need a few key people that keep lots of detail and skill in their heads, but relying on that at scale is no way to run a business.

1970-01-01 4y ago

Every 4-6 years is about right.

lefstathiou 4y ago

Hopping around is a red flag for our hiring process across every role (especially enterprise sales, which is my area of expertise). There are lots of little things it can indicate, all of which have legitimate exceptions that the folks on HN can point out. Ultimately a judgment call on your part. For every rule, there are many exceptions. Choose wisely.

zerr 4y ago

Considering an average lifespan of a human, spending 1-2 years on somebody else's dream is more than enough.

commitpizza 4y ago

No, I don't believe it is. If you stay you won't be more appreciated, get a higher salary or other benefits. I have rather seen the opposite. Each time I have switched companies I've always gotten big pay rise. If I wouldn't I would still be earning like half of what I make today. The issue is that companies rewards moving every 2 years and as long as that is the case, that is probably what I will do.

darepublic 4y ago

My history is like this and I feel the same way as OP, it's not exactly a great sign. On the other hand I have seen how long term tenure in a company can correlate (in my experience) with complacency and rent seeking type behaviour

kodah 4y ago

I'm a pretty senior engineer. I've never been promoted at a company. I've never even received a substantial raise. It's also not like I wasn't doing the things they wanted. If you're pretty senior, try moving every 3-5 years. If you're less than that try to stick out a year. There's exceptions, but honestly just be able to talk about why you did it. For instance, when I got out of the military I was chronically underpaid in tech during a time when it was okay for companies to ask my previous salary while also being from the South where techies make substantially less than average. I left companies once a year for nearly four years. They knew what the deal was, they were getting a deal on my talents but knew I wasn't passionate about their stuff.

heywire 4y ago
Counterpoint, I am also a senior engineer. I was hired as an L1 support specialist talking with end users almost 20 years ago. I was promoted through the ranks of support followed by software development. Over that time, my salary has increased more than 4x. My current salary is comparable to what I could get elsewhere in my area. Could I have done better had I jumped ship every couple of years, maybe. But I love my job and the people I work with. I’ve been working with some of the same people this whole time.
- wikibob 4y ago
  A data point you may find useful: If your salary has only increased 4x over what you made doing tier 1 support it is likely you are leaving a massive amount of money on the table. Check https://levels.fyi https://levels.fyi Now you might not be willing to do the work to pass interviews at higher paying companies. That’s fine too, but I wanted to make sure you know what the actual numbers are.
  - heywire 4y ago
    I’ve interviewed over the years and kept touch with colleagues who went elsewhere. There are certainly tracks I could have taken to raise my salary more aggressively, but at my current salary, I wouldn’t call it a massive amount of money. I’m currently between the 75th and 90th percentile for my area according to the site you provided (closer 90th than the 75th). I have a low stress 8-5 job that allows me to spend time with my family while working on exciting projects with experts in our field who have become like family to me. I’m not earning Silicon Valley money, but I’m also not paying Silicon Valley prices here in Ohio either :).

blakesterz 4y ago

YES, I always look for length of employment on a resume. If someone is consistently only at a place for a year, to me that looks bad. I don't want to go through all this work hiring someone only to have them leave in a year.

frant-hartm 4y ago

If I see more than 2 or more short positions (<=2y) I just bin the CV. Mistakes can happen, but more than 2 is a red flag for me. With the exception of being a real contractor, but this is sometimes difficult to say from CV if it was a real fixed time contract (e.g. quite common in UK), or just tax saving arrangement (common in Poland). Also at least one long position is a bonus, shows the person will stay given the right circumstances.

ipaddr 4y ago
A career with 10 places and two under 2 years seems reasonable.
odshoifsdhfs 4y ago
Do you also give 40-50% raises to your employees every 2 years? Everyone knows that you can and get those pay bumps if you switch jobs, but want to penalise it. I will say this differently, if you see short stints as a bad thing, there are two options: 1) you want to explore people that have difficulties negotiating/interviewing 2) you will hire dumb people (because unless you are curing cancer, anyone that rejects 20-50% pay bumps every couple years is just dumb)

zwieback 4y ago

I jumped companies every few years early in my career but have been at a megacorp for over 20 years now. In that time I've done vastly different types of projects so that also needs to be a consideration. At a large company with a varied product spectrum you can not only work on different types things you can also change job descriptions or even get a new degree and completely change what you do.

twawaaay 4y ago

Kinda depends on what you do and where you do it. Unfortunately, most middle management in most companies stopped caring, hide behind processes and would like to treat employees as commodity. And most upper management are either powerless or uninformed and in most cases both. And both would prefer to use any budget increase to hire new employees rather than compensate the ones they already have. As to software engineers, over the years of interviewing (but also changing jobs myself) I changed my attitude. My new thinking is that if the company does not value staying loyal when their engineers are quickly getting experience and increasing their value on the job market, when changing job is the only option to get your salary corrected to reflect your market realities, then I cannot fault the person for changing jobs rapidly. So rather than penalise people for being disloyal, I am asking probing questions, dig a bit into their explanations, the types of projects they were working on, and see if their progression and explanations check out.

veryfancy 4y ago

I think it’s generally easier to get a promotion and/or a big raise by hopping. I used to think frequent hops would yield a sketchy history on the resume, but my sense is that it’s becoming less unusual.

sho_hn 4y ago

It depends. I work in an industry (automotive infotainment) that makes very complex products where entire product cycles take 2-4 years and projects run for 6+ years. There's valuable stuff to learn from experience in every phase of a cycle. Having seen at least a full cycle can be a very useful flag for seniority. It's not a requirement per se, however. Fresh/outside thinking can also contribute much.

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago

Appreciated by whom? "The company" can't appreciate anything: it's just a corporate structure. In a privately owned company, the owner may appreciate it, or they may just want you gone. Depends on your performance. Working for a large corporation, I got the promotions and the every 5 years gifts but they were by and large meaningless. I don't really think anyone cares about long term commitment. I was asked once to stay at least a year because recruiting me was very expensive and they wanted to get their money's worth. I appreciated the frankness of the request.

deathanatos 4y ago
> "The company" can't appreciate anything: it's just a corporate structure. Does the company regularly¹ adjust worker wages to account for inflation and employee growth? (I.e., a two-year tenure employee should be worth more than a 0-year employee simply because they know how stuff in the company functions. I.e., they don't need to be trained!) That, in rough English, is "appreciating" it. Yes, normally, there's some lip service the company will give, but actual rewards in the form of compensation is the real "appreciation". But a surprising number of employers, AFAICT, don't do that. Shockingly, SWEs tend to jump ship a bit after 2 years of not getting anywhere. (And write their own salary adjustments on the jump.) It's incredibly detrimental to continually hemorrage that experience, but I feel like places I've been at don't get it for two reasons: management is too disconnected to know it, and it's all they've ever known, so they don't know how bad it is, as they've no relative basis to judge. Dunning–Kruger, essentially. ¹I'd argue yearly, but at least bi-yearly.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  I pointed out to my boss once that the percentage range that I was approved to allocate to raises for my direct reports was less than inflation and it amounted to a pay cut. He shrugged.

at_a_remove 4y ago

Even in academia, I would say that it is appreciated in a way that, from your perspective, is indistinguishable from not giving a fig. Would The Company like you to stay where you are? Yes! Will it be acted on in any way that you may discern it from complete indifference? No! I mean, who knows, we currently can measure gravitational waves via LIGO, so scientists may eventually create instruments sensitive enough to measure something as miniscule as a company's actionables toward its long-term employees, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

qwemaze 4y ago

Jumping companies is the best way to get a raise, that's the truth for most places. Everything else is just more reasons to do so. Usually that's because you don't actually need a good specialist for a long time. Maintenance could be done by juniors/mids.

deathanatos 4y ago
> Maintenance could be done by juniors Sorry, but no. Maintenance requires understanding the code, which requires reading the code. Experienced¹ eng are far more likely to be able to grind through code they didn't write, as they've read more code over the course of their career. ¹actually experienced, i.e., has actually gained knowledge. Not just "has been in the industry for more years" which seems to be frighteningly common.
- qwemaze 4y ago
  That's true from eng perspective, yes, but try explaining it to an average manager who has a few seniors and a dozen mids/juns for the same cost as seniors. He'll tell you magical "knowledge transfer" and won't think twice about making a raise for seniors and will proceed on hiring people to "transfer" the knowledge to.

zasdffaa 4y ago

Companies want commitment but typically (IME) aren't much interested in reciprocating that commitment, either directly as in valuing you, or indirectly as in giving a damn about managing you properly so you can do your job. So I don't care any more.

didip 4y ago

It depends. Most of the times, you probably should jump around every 3-4 years. That said, I have been at the same company for 7 years and the company has always compensated me well for my hard work.

tristor 4y ago

I have “job-hopped” a lot in my career. But, any time I’ve found a company that treats me well I’ve stayed as long as that was true. I’ve never jumped for money, contrary to popular belief, but rather due to cultural and leadership changes that lead to disrespect towards employees. To this day the best company I’ve ever worked for is a crucial part of my network as my former coworkers respected me greatly and formed a diaspora across the industry after we all left. Unfortunately that company is nearly nonexistent now thanks to mismanagement after a private equity acquisition. I don’t think people “job hop” on a whim, they do it because companies don’t treat employees decently. It’s not necessarily pay, it’s basic respect and autonomy.

dave333 4y ago

Top performers should switch jobs or assignments early and often to gain experience and build a network, and probably should not stay in a job more than 2 years until they are considered senior. Low/marginal performers need to stay in each job long enough (2 years?) to show they can hold it down and are not being let go frequently because of incompetence. Job security has value for these people who are the main beneficiaries of tenure since the more competent don't need tenure, at least until they near retirement. Middle performers can afford to switch a few times but often need to stay 4 years until their options vest. Generally the rewards are higher if you switch frequently up to a point. It's hard to get pay raises that match switching jobs.

dave333 4y ago

My job length history over 40+ year career - looking back I should have worked in startups much earlier and I also missed opportunities like my colleague who joined Microsoft in 1982 when you could walk down the hall to Bill Gates' office. various summer jobs pre-graduation, 2 yrs, 2 yrs, 10 yrs contractor but assigned to same large company, 5 yrs, 5 yrs, 1 yr Dot-com startup #1, 2 yrs Dot-com startup #2, self-unemployed 5 yrs, 5 yrs contract, 6 yrs hired by same company, terminated during company-wide layoffs - retired.

sys_64738 4y ago

I don't want to change as I like the environment I work in already. The job hopper often finds that the grass isn't always greener.

muzani 4y ago

It's one of those things where people think they're the best example. Those who jump ship will talk about how much experience they gained working with lots of different codebases and people. Those who didn't will talk about how much experience they gained solving the deeper problems in a single codebase. Most people do a mix, and thus have mixed opinions. I think it also depends a lot on tech ecosystem where you live too. There's a lot of dead startups where I live. The dream jobs are probably oil and gas jobs, some telco that thinks that having colorful offices will make them the next Google, or a bank with an ATM machine in "the metaverse". I can't imagine that staying too long at these places are a good sign.

holografix 4y ago

No.

silexia 4y ago

Employer here with 270 full time employees. I only promote from within and only hire outsiders to entry level roles. People who have been here a long time are by far the highest compensated.

jstx1 4y ago
So when a senior person leaves you replace them with a junior?

bdcravens 4y ago

I think it says more about the companies than it does about the employees.

picsao 4y ago

[dead]

MathMonkeyMan 4y ago

gwnywg 4y ago

I work for startup, finishing third year. I joined in quite early stage. Every year I received a package of options that vest 25% every year for 4 years. So the company still expects me to stay for next 4 years. Is 3 years long term employment? For me yes, I used to switch every ~4-5 years, and my current company does a lot to make us stay for longer.

LatteLazy 4y ago

In my experience, no. In fact it's considered a sign of weakness. I was shocked to discover I was earning more than my boss at a company a few years back. His boss laughed and said "he's been here 10 years". Do you want to be that guy? It's been pretty well proven statistically that 2 years (here in the UK, 1.5 in the US) is the optimal time to spend before either leaving or getting a significant promotion. If you leave more than 6m before that, it's too soon (then it is a red flag), if you stay longer you start to earn less. Those are the stats and you cannot argue with them...

mcv 4y ago

Employers that appreciate long-term commitment will show that appreciation with regular raises. If you're not getting regular raises, it's time to look somewhere else. Having to ask for a raise before you get it shows a lack of appreciation. Asking for a raise and having it refused shows a stronger lack of appreciation. Time to move on.

credit_guy 4y ago

Companies are made of people. There's no point of having loyalty to a company, because it's not the "company" that appreciates this loyalty (the company is just an inanimate thing), but your colleagues and managers who can appreciate. But most of these colleagues and managers don't share your loyalty. People jump ships at all levels, including sometimes at the CEO level. So colleagues and managers don't appreciate loyalty per se. But they appreciate competence. And long tenure can increase someone competence in two ways: on one hand many companies sit on top of large and complex systems. With long tenure you not only get to be familiar with these systems, you start to know their history, you have your war stories, are familiar with past solutions to recurring problems, and not least, are able to teach new joiners. And on the other hand, you have an extensive network, which can increase your productivity tremendously, because in many cases the best solution to a problem is not to roll up your sleeves and work on it, but to ask a favor to a friend who can do it ten times faster than you. Because of all these things, you'll see often people with 20 years or more of tenure being considered as pillars of their organization by their peers and managers. Unfortunately, there are sometimes people with long tenure who are not that good, and don't have strong networks (because the strength of a network depends on how often you were able to help someone else). They are just "lifers". Competent enough that it's a headache for managers to replace them (and so they escape various rounds of layoffs), but not so competent to be appreciated and loved by their colleagues. Those people just attained "job security". Nobody appreciates their "loyalty", because it was not actually loyalty that made them stay in the same place.

cbm-vic-20 4y ago

I have been at my company for nearly 25 years, moving up through the engineering ranks and "across" to being a manager. I am pretty sure I've been underpaid for years, and that it has been a mistake for me to stay for so long. This is one of the many reasons I am starting to interview elsewhere (the other reason is that I just survived a layoff so deep I think it irrevocably damaged our ability to deliver our service). I don't know what types of offers I will get, but I will soon find out if that feeling and regret is justified.

giantg2 4y ago

"Is long-term employee commitment to the same company still appreciated?" Not at all. The only thing they appreciate is that you're cheaper than your potential replacement. I have 10 years at the same company and a masters degree. I'm a midlevel dev who was passed over and screwed over a few times.

gwbas1c 4y ago
> The only thing they appreciate is that you're cheaper than your potential replacement. And that your potential replacement may take 1-2 years to be as productive as you.

logicalmonster 4y ago

I think it might be a potential question mark if an older engineer habitually spends a short amount of time within companies as there's a possibility that they're harder to get along with or tend to frequently move on before technical debt mounts up. If somebody gets to their mid-late 30s without staying somewhere at least a few years, I'd anticipate them bouncing similarly. That said, I hate the use of the word "commitment" here. If a company hits a rough financial patch, they'll dump the most loyal and committed employee in the blink of an eye to make life easier on themselves. It doesn't matter if you just bought a house or your wife is due for a baby or your kid is suffering from cancer: you're expendable 100% of the time. Tough to use words like commitment or loyalty in that environment.

withinboredom 4y ago

At my last job. I was there for 5.5 years. I changed teams every year or two working in widely varying projects and roles. After leaving, I had a hard time getting my resume to be believable. So I think once you’ve worked somewhere long enough, there’s a good chance much of what you know how to do doesn’t “fit” on a page anymore. So when you see a boring long stint, I wouldn’t trust it. This “I know you’re ‘lying’ to get a job” feeling always applies, but now instead of thinking the applicant did “less” it’s the other way around. You now have to wonder if you will offer enough for their experience and if they’ll get bored.