There are definitely important reasons to leave a good job that are not related to the job at all.
We still have personal lives.
21–30 of 58 posts
There are definitely important reasons to leave a good job that are not related to the job at all.
We still have personal lives.
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.
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 ev…
People should leave jobs as soon as they realize they aren't going to learn or grow where they are. This can happen after 8 years, or 3 months. Companies don't promise to employ people for 3 years regardless of whether they are any good, so why should an employee be expected to pay dues in a job that's obviously not going to lead anywhere?
The "job hopper" stigma is perpetuated by people who only want the side of "at will" that benefits them.
I will say that most 22-year-olds need to be better at figuring out when a job is worth leaving, because I've seen error on both sides. Everyone gets grunt work when they start out, but there are chef's apprentices (who still get grunt work, but are being primed for something better) and there are dishwashers, and it's important to figure out, in an entry-level job, which of these you are. That's a separate matter altogether. I've known a few job hoppers and they're not all people with bad judgment.
That said, people should generally go into jobs with the intention and hope of being there for at least 2 years, but I think that goes without saying.
"I see a lot of CVs. For years, I’ve noticed that some people—a lot of people, actually—don't stay very long at their first jobs. They may accept the job intending to retire there in 30 or 40 years, but instead they leave quickly, adding an early blemish to their CVs." Leaving your job is considered an early blemish? Give me a break
I think it's very different in other fields. Software developers (especially in the Bay Area) seem to switch jobs fairly often and it's definitely an accepted practice. Other fields expect you to keep a job for a far longer time.
Take today's environment. Companies can't fault people for leaving their first job when they might've landed it only after several months of searching. Chances are that job isn't a good fit for the candidate, but if you're a new grad you have to pay those loans somehow.
"I see a lot of CVs. For years, I’ve noticed that some people—a lot of people, actually—don't stay very long at their first jobs. They may accept the job intending to retire there in 30 or 40 years, but instead they leave quickly, adding an early blemish to their CVs." Leaving your job is considered an early blemish? Give me a break
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.
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…
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.
Title seems misleading. The actual reasons listed are more like, why people leave bad jobs.
"When does a high-status / high-pay position become a 'bad job'?"
Its hard to make a blanket statemnet. The value of the article is it dimensionalizes the problem a bit.
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.
For me, having an explanation about each job change is more important than the length of time at any given position.
OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. People should leave jobs as soon as they realize they aren't going to learn or grow where they are. This can happen after 8 years, or 3 months. Companies don't promise to employ people for 3 years regardless of whether they are any good, so why should an…
Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them.
I think you're misrepresenting OP's argument here. He's arguing that younger people with repeated job jumps may raise flags at prospective employers.
I tend to agree with OP, too. Jumping between gigs can be a problem, especially for people with little experience, since shorter job stints mean you don't get a chance to work with multiple people in the company or work on increasingly complex projects. Both can be problematic from a career development point of view.
I agree with your point about young 20-somethings, though: most probably don't know how to evaluate offers -- compensation, benefits, culture, and their bosses -- well enough when they graduate. I know I didn't.
OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. People should leave jobs as soon as they realize they aren't going to learn or grow where they are. This can happen after 8 years, or 3 months. Companies don't promise to employ people for 3 years regardless of whether they are any good, so why should an…
The rest of your post was really good, you don't need to debase it with that kind of pointless drivel.