This is bad advice. The right answer is often to change jobs, but the explanation given here is pretty terrible. If you have a pattern of working significantly

This is bad advice. The right answer is often to change jobs, but the explanation given here is pretty terrible. If you have a pattern of working significantly less in your first 6 months on a job than later on, then you're making a mistake. That's the time to establish a reputation, figure out what is worth working on, and get a mental map of the organization so that you can actually get things done. It's the hardest time in a job, if you do it right. If you let the "honeymoon period" blind you and slack in your first 6 months, you start getting grunt work thrown at you and that's how you end up overwhelmed and struggling at the 3-year mark. If you do the first 6 months right and gain the credibility, alliances, and reputation that'll put you on a good vector, you (a) have a much higher chance of getting on a fast-track, which means better work rather than more of the same, and (b) can get away with slacking and recharging (as you seek external promotion) if you are passed-over for some reason. Also, for higher-level positions, switching jobs often means changing locations and doing that every year is pretty miserable... especially if you have kids. At some point, you're specialized enough that unless you live in New York or SF-- which are pretty much out once you have kids, unless you're in a hedge fund or a VC firm-- you're going to have to stick with a job for a few years just because there aren't many jobs in your specialty and location. It's worth changing jobs for a genuine promotion, but a high frequency of lateral movement looks really bad. Given also that it can be hard to tell if a new job is a genuine promotion, it's better to stay where you are if you have something good and you're continuing to advance.