I’ve often heard that as a genral rule of thumb you should stay at any job for at least a year, especially at your first job. Is this true? Does it look bad on a resume or job application to have jobs with tenures shorter than a year?
The reason I ask, is that I’ve been at my current job for just over 10 months, and it is my first ‘real’ job since graduating college. Although I’ve been kinda looking for something else since I started this job, I haven’t taken it real seriously at all, but I am planning on putting a lot more effort into it in the near future and really trying to get a new job. Should I hold off on sending out resumes till I get the 1 year experience? Would it make much of a difference?
First job might not be so important. But I use the two year rule. And if you do it too much you’ll start to lose interest from employers down the road.
The thing to keep in mind is the major exception to the One-Year Rule, and that is: Moving up is not a Bad Thing. If you have a degree in design, for example, and you are currently working at Taco Bell, leaving for a job with an architect is not considered a violation. If you are already working in your field, then getting a higher responsibility job trumps staying for a year. But if you are just going from one firm to another and doing the same work, that would violate the rule and look bad down the road.
In addition to Moving Up there is the “Uncertain Economy” job. It will look odd if you switch jobs often, but having a job or two on your resume long term with shorter tenure won’t be looked at too oddly. You could be moving in response to layoff rumors, a dot com gone bust, etc.
When I look at candidates, it’s not the kiss of death, but it is somethting that I wonder about.
As mentioned, if you’re working at Taco Bell or otherwise underemployed, that’s understandable. And in the recent economy a lot of “first ins” are also “first outs.” I wouldn’t hold a layoff against anyone in this climate.
Plus, I left my first job out of grad school (though not college) in less than a year so I can relate. I took a job with an accounting firm that was supposed to be managing the company’s marketing. That particular job I evaporated shortly after I was hired. They kept me on, but as an auditor (I had my CPA)–the same thing I’d done before grad school and didn’t want to do any more. I left that job as soon as busy season was over. I didn’t bear any ill will to the company (heck, they kept me on when my actual job was eliminated), but I’d done that elsewhere and didn’t want to anymore.
I’ve also seen candidates who come through who want to leave a relatively new position because they simply hate the city where the job is located. Or a spouse has moved.
So I won’t write off someone just because of leaving a job in less than a year.
That said, if it looks like you’re job hopping within the same field, I won’t look too hard at your resume. And you do have some hurdles that someone in a job longer wouldn’t have. For example, if you can’t stand the city your job is in, you’ll have to show me that it’s not because you simply can’t adjust to new environments.
I’m going to go ahead and say no, it doesn’t matter. After all, if they are offering you a better job, why not take it? Only thing is, you better stay at the next place for 2 years or so otherwise you might end up with a bunch of short stints on your resume. It’s not uncommon to shift around a lot those first few years out of school.
My first job out of business school, I was at for over a year before being laid off. I then had a job for 6 months but it fell through. I’ve been at my current job 6 months and I can’t stand it because it is the same crap I did 5 years ago (low level database programming for idiot business people which was sold to me as “management consulting” similar to the Big-5 firm I worked at after B-school…motherfuckers…). Since the last year or so has been pretty sketchy employment-wise, I feel I should stay here at least a year or more. Of course, my sanity may not allow that so it doesn’t hurt to quietly look.
We had someone who quit after 2 months. One of my coworkers though it was a bad idea but I’m like “she has a choice between doing this crap and what she studied in school. She has a job offer. What should she care what this former-dot com nothing company thinks?”
It matters, but it doesn’t matter. If you get a few short jobs in a row, you’ll be asked about it, but it typically isn’t the end of the world.
Personally, I’d rather hire somebody who’s had a few short jobs but moved each time into something more challenging, over someone who’s done the exact same job for 4 years straight. any day.
Look at your resume as if you were going to hire yourself. If you’ve a large number of similar jobs held for 6 months each, it looks like something’s wrong. You’re going to think “He’ll quit here, or be hopeless and we’ll fire him. No hire.” If you move to a better job after 11 months, it looks like you’re on the rise.
Of course, there’s bound to be managers who follow the “2 year at each” rule blindly, but I think it helps to understand why it is a rule.
Besides, you’ll probably be looking for quite a while. And if you get a better job, you can jump at it, if not, you might hold out and two months’ll have gone before you noticed.
I have to say it really depends on the career goals and field you are in.
Take for instance a computer consultant. I did consulting work for numerous years and my resume, if taken at face value looked like a job shoppers haven. My contract jobs lasted anywhere from 3 weeks to 2 years, and not all for the same consulting firm either. I liked the variety of consulting work, you learn a lot about various technical elements you would not normally have the chance to work with if you stayed with the same company.
If you are in a field that you can “justify” not being in the same position for 1 or 2 years then I don’t think it hurts you in the long run.