6 ms·

a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you. Five to 7 years at a company is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when accepting a ne

by doktrin 14y ago

a series of 1- or 2-year stays will still hurt you. Five to 7 years at a company is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when accepting a new job. Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first position, and 1.5 into my second.

MrEnigma 14y ago
I think it depends on who you ask. I think it's assumed that 2+ years is a normal stepping away point. Personally I've done a nearly 7 year stint, then a 2.5 year stint, and currently nearly a year into my current position. My thoughts are that I wish I would have changed jobs more often for my first job when I was learning, to open up my mind to what was out there. Although I still think it's important to move around. 5 years seems like you're stagnating (unless you're in a position where you are driving the direction).
Smudge 14y ago
It does seem a bit conservative to me, which is why I submitted the link. I wanted to see whether I was alone in that thought.
- doktrin 14y ago
  Part of the disconnect may be down to industry norms. For instance, it's probably a little unusual to stick around a tech startup for 7+ years. That said, I have colleagues who have worked in my current company (startup) for 5+ years. However, they are certainly the exception and not the norm. IME, it's unusual to see a resume wherein almost the entirety of a senior engineer's experience is from 1 organization. I've even heard it described as a potential weakness.
  - vonmoltke 14y ago
    IME, it's unusual to see a resume wherein almost the entirety of a senior engineer's experience is from 1 organization. I've even heard it described as a potential weakness. I left my first job about 4 months ago; two weeks from tomorrow would have been my 10-year service anniversary. I definitely think that tenure seriously hindered my efforts to leave said organization (along with a couple other, off-topic issues). I understand the position of those who believe that should be a weakness, but I don't agree the length of tenure in itself should be a weakness. In that not-quite-10-year period I went from being an electrical engineer, to a systems engineer[1], to a real-time software engineer. Had I parked and done the same thing for 10 years[2] I would agree that it was a weakness. Of course, that has little to do with the organization and much to do with attitude, as one could move companies but not really progress technically as well. [1] The aerospace/defense kind, not the IT kind [2] There were lots of people who did that, for far longer
mnicole 14y ago
This goes against a lot of what I've read in the past, where the 1.5/2 year mark is where you re-evaluate where you are and what you want. My longest stay somewhere was 3.5 years, and that felt like an eternity given the type of work I do and how I yearn for constant growth, particularly through change.
maximilianburke 14y ago
I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck. If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list. If they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored and leaving. As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. If you (the candidate, in general) leave before then without extenuating circumstances I would probably skip over your resume the next time it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you were. Searching for candidates is an expensive, time-consuming process, I don't want to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill a position that I recently filled.
- sanxiyn 14y ago
  Thanks. An interesting perspective from a manager. I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? The phrase, "add insult to injury" comes to mind.
  - maximilianburke 14y ago
    There are two reasons. The first is that presumably I passed on all the other candidates to go with my selection for a reason. Now that the best candidate for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit those who I passed over. The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles so the group is going to be a man down until a new person is hired.
mechanical_fish 14y ago
This is from Science magazine. Presumably the audience is scientists, not programmers. Having worked as both, I'd definitely say that scientists change jobs less frequently than programmers. It takes a lot longer to settle into a job, the jobs don't evolve as fast, and it can take longer than one or two years just to wrap up your first project. Data only arrive so quickly. The supply/demand situation is also reversed: There's a surplus of scientists, and no matter what your field is there's probably not many open positions, so the odds that the alternative job of your dreams will open up during any given year are smaller. Finally, science is organized as an international guild that respects seniority. If you hold a chair for twenty years you've got more political power. The opposite situation prevails in many subfields of software - you have to turn over your skills fairly rapidly or risk being left behind.
- SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
  Agreed. My first programming salary job (did some consulting earlier) was for ~2 years. The person who hired me gave me a series of about 12 promises about what the job would be like, and then systematically broke every one. My second job (huge raise!) only made it about a year, at which point I lost faith in that company and was sick of the long commute. After that, I did consulting for a while, then took another job for about a year and a half, and moved on and did more consulting...repeat. I did finally land somewhere that I stayed for almost six years before eventually resigning to consult some more, but in general my jobs have all been 1-2 years at most. I have never been questioned about why I stayed such a "short time" at those positions, and I've only rarely had trouble getting interviews when sending in my resume (the only time really was the period after 9/11, when the country was in shock and, as far as I could tell, no one was hiring). And I get offers from many of the positions I interview for. So no, I can say categorically that, at least in software jobs, 1-2 years at a job isn't considered problematic, at least if you're otherwise a strong candidate.
MartinCron 14y ago
I once left a job after just three months. It was obviously not a good fit for me, but I realized that sticking around for a year, the whole "I'm going to give it a year" thing, wasn't really a good idea for anyone. For me, having an explanation about each job change is more important than the length of time at any given position.
- philsnow 14y ago
  You know, you don't necessarily have to put that 3-month job on your resume. Leaving a 3-month gap might be better, YMMV.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Yeah, I haven't put that job on the resume for years, nobody has asked about the gap yet.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by doktrin 14y ago

MrEnigma 14y ago

I think it depends on who you ask. I think it's assumed that 2+ years is a normal stepping away point. Personally I've done a nearly 7 year stint, then a 2.5 year stint, and currently nearly a year into my current position. My thoughts are that I wish I would have changed jobs more often for my first job when I was learning, to open up my mind to what was out there. Although I still think it's important to move around. 5 years seems like you're stagnating (unless you're in a position where you are driving the direction).

Smudge 14y ago

It does seem a bit conservative to me, which is why I submitted the link. I wanted to see whether I was alone in that thought.

doktrin 14y ago
Part of the disconnect may be down to industry norms. For instance, it's probably a little unusual to stick around a tech startup for 7+ years. That said, I have colleagues who have worked in my current company (startup) for 5+ years. However, they are certainly the exception and not the norm. IME, it's unusual to see a resume wherein almost the entirety of a senior engineer's experience is from 1 organization. I've even heard it described as a potential weakness.
- vonmoltke 14y ago
  IME, it's unusual to see a resume wherein almost the entirety of a senior engineer's experience is from 1 organization. I've even heard it described as a potential weakness. I left my first job about 4 months ago; two weeks from tomorrow would have been my 10-year service anniversary. I definitely think that tenure seriously hindered my efforts to leave said organization (along with a couple other, off-topic issues). I understand the position of those who believe that should be a weakness, but I don't agree the length of tenure in itself should be a weakness. In that not-quite-10-year period I went from being an electrical engineer, to a systems engineer[1], to a real-time software engineer. Had I parked and done the same thing for 10 years[2] I would agree that it was a weakness. Of course, that has little to do with the organization and much to do with attitude, as one could move companies but not really progress technically as well. [1] The aerospace/defense kind, not the IT kind [2] There were lots of people who did that, for far longer

mnicole 14y ago

This goes against a lot of what I've read in the past, where the 1.5/2 year mark is where you re-evaluate where you are and what you want. My longest stay somewhere was 3.5 years, and that felt like an eternity given the type of work I do and how I yearn for constant growth, particularly through change.

maximilianburke 14y ago

I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2 year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck. If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list. If they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored and leaving. As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. If you (the candidate, in general) leave before then without extenuating circumstances I would probably skip over your resume the next time it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you were. Searching for candidates is an expensive, time-consuming process, I don't want to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill a position that I recently filled.

sanxiyn 14y ago
Thanks. An interesting perspective from a manager. I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? The phrase, "add insult to injury" comes to mind.
- maximilianburke 14y ago
  There are two reasons. The first is that presumably I passed on all the other candidates to go with my selection for a reason. Now that the best candidate for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit those who I passed over. The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles so the group is going to be a man down until a new person is hired.

mechanical_fish 14y ago

This is from Science magazine. Presumably the audience is scientists, not programmers. Having worked as both, I'd definitely say that scientists change jobs less frequently than programmers. It takes a lot longer to settle into a job, the jobs don't evolve as fast, and it can take longer than one or two years just to wrap up your first project. Data only arrive so quickly. The supply/demand situation is also reversed: There's a surplus of scientists, and no matter what your field is there's probably not many open positions, so the odds that the alternative job of your dreams will open up during any given year are smaller. Finally, science is organized as an international guild that respects seniority. If you hold a chair for twenty years you've got more political power. The opposite situation prevails in many subfields of software - you have to turn over your skills fairly rapidly or risk being left behind.

SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
Agreed. My first programming salary job (did some consulting earlier) was for ~2 years. The person who hired me gave me a series of about 12 promises about what the job would be like, and then systematically broke every one. My second job (huge raise!) only made it about a year, at which point I lost faith in that company and was sick of the long commute. After that, I did consulting for a while, then took another job for about a year and a half, and moved on and did more consulting...repeat. I did finally land somewhere that I stayed for almost six years before eventually resigning to consult some more, but in general my jobs have all been 1-2 years at most. I have never been questioned about why I stayed such a "short time" at those positions, and I've only rarely had trouble getting interviews when sending in my resume (the only time really was the period after 9/11, when the country was in shock and, as far as I could tell, no one was hiring). And I get offers from many of the positions I interview for. So no, I can say categorically that, at least in software jobs, 1-2 years at a job isn't considered problematic, at least if you're otherwise a strong candidate.

MartinCron 14y ago

I once left a job after just three months. It was obviously not a good fit for me, but I realized that sticking around for a year, the whole "I'm going to give it a year" thing, wasn't really a good idea for anyone. For me, having an explanation about each job change is more important than the length of time at any given position.

philsnow 14y ago
You know, you don't necessarily have to put that 3-month job on your resume. Leaving a 3-month gap might be better, YMMV.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Yeah, I haven't put that job on the resume for years, nobody has asked about the gap yet.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]