I’ve had two different employers throughout my career. 9 years at the first one, and now 20 years at my second one. I steadily advanced with both companies and am very satisfied with my job/career/occupation.
Throughout my career, I have been involved with recruiting and hiring other people to our company. Maybe it’s my personal bias, based upon my own experience, but when I see resumes of candidates that over the course of 10-20 year career that have job hopped about every two to three years it gives me concern about that particular candidate. Many of these people never have been promoted at any of the companies they worked for, but hopped to another company for a promotion and presumably a compensation increase. I took one chance on a person with such a resume and after a year confirmed my suspicion that this person wasn’t the leader we were looking for. So now when I see these job history patterns on a candidates resume, I have an immediate negative bias.
The issue I see now is that this type of candidate is becoming more prevalent, especially among millennials. I can’t determine if it’s an impatience on their part to want that next job sooner than their employer believes they are ready, or is it a way to compensate for poorer performance and the next fool (employer) will have to figure it out?
Any body else have any perspectives on this phenomena?
In software, where I am, it’s expected that you’ll jump every 1-2 years for your first 3-4 jobs. In theory this is so you can get experience, but in reality it’s because sticking around for a 3-4% raise is kinda dumb when you could be getting a 15-20% raise by jumping to a new company.
After 5-6 years in the industry, it’s better to slow down to 5-10 years with a company. But I would still expect to jump around several more times before retirement.
The guys that stick at one company for 20 years are way behind, both in skillset and compensation, than the guys that are happy moving.
I wouldn’t even blink at 6-7 jobs in 20 years. I would probably not even interview someone that had one job for 10 years - they’re going to be too set in their ways. I might look askance at more than 5 jobs in 5 years though.
In my experience, job hopping occurs because wages tend to be sticky. Once a person gets hired, I find that it’s hard for that person to get large raises at the same company unless he gets promoted, even if wages for the specific job are increasing in the market overall. But this works both ways; when wages are declining, people tend to stick to their current jobs more since they can’t get better offers, and are therefore hoping they don’t get laid off.
I left my first job because corporate made a decision that all engineers with less then 3 years experience had to go into a two year training program so I went from having a job and responsibilities to riding around watching other people work. That sucked so I left.
My second job was awesome but even though my title never changed I gained a ton of responsibility and left because I was interested more in running the business so I went to get my MBA
Unfortunately the company I jumped to so I could work while going to school got bought by KKR the day I signed my offer letter. A year later I got recommended for promotion and was declined due as my boss put it for not playing enough golf with the VP. My boss was fired a month later and I quit after working directly for that VP for 6 months
Unfortunately the company I jumped to announced they were having layoffs my first day on the job, 6 months later they let people go by last in first out.
Then I started my own consulting company and the entire oilfield cratered a year later. I’ve kept the company alive but I’ve changed what we consult on considerably.
I also started my distillery as part of my capstone project from my MBA and increased its value to about 1.5 million in two years and now I’ve hired a full staff to run it so I can be an absentee owner.
Now I’m back on the job market and I’m having issues getting interviews partially because they see that I’ve had 6 jobs in 10 years out of undergrad. Luckily I’ve got a great job that I’m going interviewing for next week that likes the different experiences I’ve had and that I’ve started and run successfully two companies.
Don’t judge job hoppers prematurely some times there are very logical reasons for switching and they can get a wider range of experience then by staying in the same place.
It’s hard for job seekers to win; some people will ding you for leaving your job too soon, and others will penalize you for staying too long. I don’t know what the perfect amount of time to stay at a job is in order to be palatable to everyone.
Personally, I’d be more concerned with very long job tenures than job hopping (within reason). In my experience, people who have been in an organization for a very long time are not very adaptable or nimble, and just sort of coast through the years. Not true of everyone, undoubtedly, but that’s what I’ve seen.
What do you get for company loyalty these days, anyway? Pensions are gone. Pay raises and promotions come slowly. Companies will cut you loose without a second thought if it benefits them. If someone else is willing to pay you more or risk giving you a bigger role, I can’t blame you for leaving. The stereotypical 20-year employee is a relic of the past.
Hopping from job to job is pretty much par for the course in journalism. No one is going to hold it against you if you don’t feel like slaving away for 10 years at the tiny little nothing newspaper that you started at before moving on. You might outgrow your first few papers pretty quickly if you’ve got some talent and ambition. If you’re a reporter who’d like to become an editor, well, that job might be filled by a lifer at the paper you’re currently at, and seeking your fortunes elsewhere would be your only reasonable option. And, of course, these days, plenty of good journalists are getting mowed down by layoffs and paper closures.
For several decades I was in an industry (graphic arts/typography/publishing/advertising) that has gone through so many changes that most of the companies I worked for went out of business. Even though I was being promoted, up to being Creative Director of a Madison Avenue ad agency, my resume looks like a patchwork quilt. You probably wouldn’t hire me, based on that . . . not that I’m still in the job market.
It certainly depends on the field. In my corner of the software industry, someone who has been at the job for <2 years is effectively a junior engineer–regardless of how much experience they started with. It’s just not possible to learn enough about the system in much less time than that to be a truly effective engineer.
I would be skeptical of someone jumping around every year because I’d be concerned they’d never “pay off” the investment put into them (if you add up all the effort needed to being a new engineer up to speed, they’re probably a net negative for at least the first year).
But we’re largely focused on systems software, and value solid C/C++ skills and deep systems knowledge over knowing the latest web language. I certainly wouldn’t turn away someone with 20 years experience in one company if it was the right kind of experience. I’ve averaged an 8.5% annual raise for the past 15 years in the same company, so it’s also hardly universal that sticking with the same company will barely beat inflation.
Whether this is relevant, I don’t know – but I’m 37, and I can’t really stay in a job more than about 4 years. I just get too bored, and need something different.
Are you a C-level executive or running a major division of the company?
What are you concerned about? Do you plan to be in the same job watching them 2-3 years from now? Are you concerned that they won’t stay for 20 years? Is there something about these jobs you hire for that require 5+ years of mastery?
Truth be told, you wouldn’t hire someone like me. Your boss would hire my firm to bring me in at an exorbitant bill rate and travel budget. I’d learn all your business processes in a few weeks, spend a few months helping your leadership try and solve some business problem. The project would get overwhelmed by your corporate politics, you’d run out of budget and ultimately nothing would get done. And then I’d move on to some other client.
Then again, we wouldn’t hire someone like you. Unless we thought your 20 years would be an entry into industry contacts who could turn into potential clients. We are much more likely to hire people with a patchwork of firms like Accenture, Goldman Sachs, and tech startups.
Possibly a red flag, depending on what the nature of the job changes are. Interestingly, I’ve held many job titles - director, manager, senior manager, managing consultant, engagement manager, program manager - for all intents and purpose, they were the same job. A lot of times I’ve been given “title bump” promotions where I got a better title, but no pay increase or real chance of duties.
There are pros and cons to staying at one company a long time. It’s tough to make partner at a professional services firm until you put in the time. It’s tough to get to real management level (actual headcount and budget) at a large company unless you’ve been there a long time. And there is value in learning the ins and outs of how a company actually runs, which you can only learn from being there.
The problem is, many companies do very little to advance their employees. I see plenty of people at the same job I was doing two or three jobs ago and they are still doing the same thing at the same level. Or they restructure them out (sometimes giving vague “performance” reasons. So if you aren’t advancing and you aren’t learning anything, what value is there is staying at the same company.
Personally, there are jobs I’ve had that I wished lasted longer. Then there are some where 1 year was way too long.
I have a friend in software sales who seems to jump jobs every 2-3 years, it seems. I wager it’s because of her experience (20+ years) and subsequent salary raises offered. My friend is the family breadwinner so it behooves my friend to follow the money. It’s also considered par for the course in the industry.
In contrast, it’s a bad sign for somebody who’s FT in my industry to job hop. Employer loyalty and breadth of experience still means something in certain circles. It’s slowly changing, however, thanks to the younger generation. I predict the industry will be turned on its head in 10-20 years.
When I bought my flat, I was denied for a mortgage even though the lady running me through the process was keening “you’re perfect! You’re perfect! Except for that one little detail you’re perfect! Damn this computer program and the guy who designed it!”
The little detail: I’d changed jobs in the last 3 years. But for the last 5 years I’d been working in IT, and with a kind of profile where even if companies hired me “perm” it was actually “perm until the end of the project”. I’ve had the pleasure to be let go because “we don’t have any project for you right now”, get a call from that same company less than a month later, and be able to say “sorry, I’m already engaged”.
I’d been continuously employed, never fired, each job hop had meant a higher salary. But - oh noes! She’s unstable! Danger, danger!
Thankfully other banks weren’t so picky.
One thing I found very stupid about “job stability” and becoming self-employed: during my 8 years self-employed I’ve changed jobs as frequently as during the previous 8 years I spent as an employee in the same type of jobs. But alas, these last 8 years count as a single job for anybody checking my employment history. If I’d become self-employed when I first thought about it, I would have been stable enough for that bank.
I am fascinated by the blame-shifting that happens in some narratives of the business world. Somehow, it’s not businesses treating employees like crap as a matter of policy that’s responsible for the idea of ‘employer loyalty’ becoming more and more of a joke, it’s those damn kids today with their smart phones and refusal to eat cereal. Companies making raises, promotions, and training hard to get, striving to pay ‘industry average’ salaries, abusing ‘salaried’ to get people to work 60+ hours a week, using technology to take away even more personal time (‘why didn’t you answer that email after hours?’), while being ready to conduct mass layoffs if it improves stock prices is not something the younger generation scrambling for entry-level jobs has no influence over.
The reason you might be having trouble isn’t because you changed jobs frequently. You are a “doer”. You start your own businesses and consultancies. You’re not the sort of person to spend years riding a cubicle collecting your 3% raises for doing nothing. From my experience, large corporations often shy away from those sort of backgrounds because it’s difficult to quantify your skill sets into a specific cog they can plug into the organization. In spite of whatever marketing rhetoric they think they should post online, big corporations typically don’t need smart, entrepreneurial people to solve difficult problems. They need steady, reliable people to sit in a chair and carry out operationalized processes according to pre-established policies and procedures.
It’s also why these companies hire armies of temps, contractors, freelancers and consultants (both independent and from large firms). Part of it is cost savings obviously. But a lot of it is that the mopes they have working for them can’t really change.
Someone with your background would be better off looking at smaller, more entrepreneurial firms and startups.
You are making the blanket assumption that each company has growth to support promotions of its employees and that isn’t the case. So the only way to get a promotion and salary increase is by leaving the company. Also, if you work in a field such as IT, were you were hired to do project A and it has been completed, and you are now stuck in boring maintenance mode and not learning new skills, it is time to move on. Because if you stay there too long, your skills will dwindle leaving you vulnerable in the market place.
There is such a thing as having survival skills on the job. People who can anticipate a problem before the downsizing find another job, which is a smart thing to do.
For most new hire, within 5 years the terrific raises stop and before you know it, the new hire right out of college is making as much or not more than you are.
I wouldn’t hold it against anyone. More to the point, I would look at the experience they have learned. Because someone who has spend 10-20 years on the job isn’t as likely to be flexible enough to be successful in new work environments. I have a friend who works in IT that for the last 10 years or more I have been begging him to learn new software skills and he has refused to do so. Several years away from retirement the company downsized him, and he was very upset about it. Because at that point he felt no one else would hire him since he didn’t have the current skills because he was basically maintaining legacy systems. Without any good job options and his desire to not even try to learn something new, he has decided to live off his savings until Social Security becomes available.
Believe me, I’ve paid my dues, my 50-60 hour weeks (which I still do when necessary). My current employer pays a damn good salary for what I do. Ergo, it’s in my best interest to make my employer happy with my skill set. My skill set as such is becoming rare; ergo, it’s also in my best interest to keep doing what I’m doing not just for my own financial gain, but also to pass on my skills.
What I’m discovering is that IN GENERAL, the younger generation isn’t interested. They don’t want to break their asses in a business which demands you break your ass every so often. We’ve fired people before for not stepping up. The threat doesn’t faze them.
I don’t understand because back when I was their age and just starting out, I was petrified of being fired for being too slow; ergo, I taught myself to run circles around everybody.
I get it. I get why this younger generation scoffs at “employer loyalty”. I know it’s a different time and place than it was when I was their age. What I’ve never understood my entire working like is the lack of a work ethic. I tend to notice much more in this generation IN GENERAL compared to others.
(capitalized because I do know some young’uns who do have a work ethic, but for the most part it seems to be absent. You don’t get anywhere in my line of work without one. We just had an incident where the young’un in question was trained to do a specific task. The young’un did well, but as soon as everyone’s back was turned, it all went to hell. And yes, I’m not the only one still angered by it).
My thoughts exactly. About two years seems to be the longest anyone who hasn’t become editor of something (not necessarily the whole paper, but like sports editor or police editor etc) seems to stick around. One paper I was at, the editor had been there more than a decade (and was rightfully well respected), but the chief reporter had also been there ages and if they left, there was another person next in line for the role. So no room for advancement, which meant a fairly regular newsroom turnover - not great for the paper or the readers.
More importantly, the pay as a journo in Australia is terrible; a huge number of journos stay in the industry for a couple of years to get some experience and contacts, then head over to the PR/Marketing game instead.
I think the best answer to this question is for the employer to do their due diligence and find out why the applicant has changed jobs. If it was because the applicant was five minutes away from being fired, that’ll come out. On the other hand, if it was because the applicant wanted more from their career than they could get from their current and previous positions, that’ll come out, as well. Consider the pattern, but consider the reasons.