Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Often Should You Change Jobs?
An anonymous reader writes "We all know somebody who changes jobs like changing clothes. In software development and IT, it's getting increasingly hard to find people who have been at their job for more than a few years. That's partly because of tech companies' bias for a young work force, and partly because talented people can write their own ticket in this industry. Thus, I put the question to you: how often should you be switching jobs? Obviously, if you find the perfect company (full of good people, doing interesting things, paying you well), your best bet is to stay. But that's not the reality for most of the workforce. Should you always be keeping an eye out for new jobs? Is there a length of time you should stick around so you don't look like a serial job-hopper? Does there come a point in life when it's best to settle down and stick with a job long term?"
I am a garbageman
If you're not doing or learning something new, you're dying a slow painful death inside.
I suppose that depends upon other variables. Such as, what are your personal risk factors? For example: a family, do you have enough $ resources so if you fail you'll recover ok, etc. Lots of people got hit badly in the $ when the tech market went kaput -- some haven't really fully recovered. Then, there is age. We all know what the stereotype is of age in the IT sector - though I would hire an older IT person over a kid any day, partly due to their wisdom from experience. Back in the stock boom, it used to be 2 years max I would change jobs and/or positions; not just to stay relevant, but to move on. Sometimes I got lucky, by being pulled in to new ventures because I knew people (that's a powerful ally in this industry).
Seems like the market is starting to grow a little bit, but I'm not sure it's a job-bull market just yet. Curious what others think and feel about this.
Don't do this many times in a row, though, because the pattern on your resume says much more than length of time.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Those companies that have a development environment with a 6-12 month learning curve might/will look negatively at job hoppers - people who will come and go prior to being productive. Granted, these tend to be niche markets, but they DO exist.
Given a steady job with a pension that won't disappear, I think most people would rather stay at a company long term. Corporate America took this from us and now complains they can't keep people. They set the rules, we're just getting around to beating them at their own game.
Once every 56 years?
Too soon?
Personally, I've found that if you stay somewhere much longer than 3-5 years, you are probably making significantly below market, and your job choices tend to decrease the longer you stay with one company. I'm more of a dev/ops engineer (puppet/ansible/jenkins/build automation) than a software dev, but they call me the later.
Very common around where I work.
By "change jobs," do you mean change employers as well? What about lateral moves within the same company, or between different organizations within the same company?
Ultimately, how often you change roles (either change in job description, responsibilities, or employer, as I'm defining it) depends on the following things:
1, demand in your field. If your field has more demand than supply, these are the salad days...moving from company to company can be beneficial. These days will not last forever, so make sure you take advantage of them, but also be wary of reaching the pinnacle of compensation. At some point, the market will catch up, and you may end up being more expensive than you're worth when that day comes.
2, the company/organization you work for and the opportunity it provides. If you have growth still ahead of you and are continuing to grow in your current place, then moving is probably not a great idea. Money's good, but development is better. A lot of companies don't have a career path that's technical (instead of automatically turning you into a manager who never will touch technology again), so that's a consideration as well. Which way do you want your career to go?
3, your current happiness in the role you occupy. This is for you to define, and the rationale behind it should be obvious.
4, how long you've been there/industry tolerance for job-hopping. If you've been at the last 4 jobs for less than a year each, this may not look so great on a resume. But some industries/career paths are quite tolerant of such things, understanding the current state of the market.
At least, that's how I see it, in broad strokes.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
blame outsourced work / contractors / subcontractor for people who move job to job a lot.
Some contractors only last 6 mo to an year 1 And then it may be the same job but at and different place or after time is up they may move stuff around or change the main contractor and what if that main contractor lowers pay rates or has there own staff and they kick out the people in place?
Also some times it can be the same job and same place but under an new name for the main contractor.
Some contractor work can only be an few weeks and or your just there to get them switched to overseas teams with maybe 1-2 people on call to do stuff hands on.
Some places only have people come on to work on an new product and after it's out most of the team is gone till the next one.
I can tell you now than when I am hiring and looking at resumes and see 1 year, 2 years, 1.5 years, 9 months, I label it is a "job hopper" and throw it in the "least likely to consider" pile. And a CRAPLOAD of the resumes are that way, regardless of the position. Many things come to mind when I see that "hopping"- maybe they are just using each job as a stepping stone to get more money or experience, maybe there is something wrong with them and they can't keep a job, or perhaps they are too easily bored.
As an employer, hiring a new employee is a HUGE amount of time and financial drain on my department. Regardless of what somebody does know or thinks they know, I rarely get full productivity from someone until perhaps a year (sometimes less, sometimes more). If they are looking for such temporary employment, I need them to just look elsewhere.... I need some reasonable return on my investment.
I don't expect people to stay at a job for decades anymore (although there is nothing wrong with that... I have 25 years now with the same company) and I know sometimes a job is just not a good fit. But turnover in a small department can be devastating. If I were to see the same resume with 5 years, 3 years, 6 years, that looks FAR more attractive.
At a minimum, at least as often as you get fired.
I've made my career building out new applications that are enabled by advancing computer technology. These jobs only last for a few years. A basic product development cycle is maybe 2 to 5 years, at which point you've either
- succeeded, and don't need people like me any more
- failed, and definitely don't need people like me any more
When the job goes away, I find a new one. Sometimes I find a new job at the same company, but that is inessential.
The short tenure of these jobs doesn't have much to do with me. It is driven by the staggering speed at which the underlying computer technology is advancing and changing.
I don't hire folks that hop around. It is just not worth my effort. If I want temporary help I use one of those "warm body" agencies
how often should you change girlfriends?
Answer: when starts to suck badly.
If you are young, one of the best ways to learn and progress in your career is to change jobs a number of times.
Times change, but when I was starting out as a web dev, it was 'good practice' to have terms of 2 to 3 years for a role. Too many periods of short term employment tended to be a turn-off for companies, as they have to invest time on new employees. Whether this applies in all countries or regions, I'm not sure, but it's a good rule of thumb.
Be wary of very small companies, whilst they can be an incredible learning experience with a good deal of creative freedom, they can also suffer from cash flow issues. It's a volatile market.
Keep yourself ready to jump ship & be aware what's happening within the company you work at. The signs are easy to spot - managers arguing amongst themselves, lots of impromptu closed door meetings unrelated to projects, an expectation for employees to work unreasonable hours and most telling, the sales guys talk more about prospects than actual projects.
As you progress through your career, the other way to increase your income, aside from changing jobs, is to get into a management role. This comes at a price, as eventually, you may find yourself no longer doing what you love. Instead, you could find yourself doing admin and sitting in meetings all day long.
Working at a larger organisation *can* be more secure, but only if there's clear ways to move across departments - that's a sign of a healthy environment where you have the opportunity to change focus and become more valuable.
When you start hitting your late 30's and into your 40's, assuming you haven't started your own business, contract or freelance, it's probably time to settle into longer term employment.
Ideally, you'll have the experience to command a comfortable salary, with perks. If you're not in management by this point, you should be in at least a senior position. For many, this is the most comfortable option.
This is entirely from my own experience - I got tired of moving jobs and sought out a larger company who paid above the odds, had all the benefits & job security. Many of the folks in the tech department where I work have been there over 10 years.
I tell people I will change jobs for a 30% increase in compensation. That results in a job change every seven years, and here's why. There is a difference between the reported and actual rates of inflation. And annual increases at an existing job more closely track reported inflation, whereas job offers from other companies more closely track actual inflation.
For example, if reported inflation is 3% and actual inflation is 7%, then after 7 years that's a 32% difference.
It's not just that people can "write their own tickets", but that promotions and raises seem to happen much more at time of hire than after good performance. Work on that and there might be a lot less churn ..
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
I have 2 simple rules:
1) If the job is really terrible -- crazy boss, lousy environment, not enough funding -- it should be obvious within 30 days or so. At most companies this is a probationary period anyway. I've quit a couple of jobs quickly for these reasons, and I've found that HR (if not the boss) is generally okay with this. Act professionally, of course, give notice and all that, but It's better to cut ties early if you feel that you and the employer are not a good match.
2) Assuming I get past 30 days and still like it, I've always tried to make it to 2 years before trading up. I've found that after year 1, I'll get a bonus or a bump in salary almost automatically. Year 2 is when the employer starts to look for something more out of me, and also when I'll get a better idea of possible career paths within the company.
My experience is that job hopping is not a big deal as long as you have good reasons, and as long as it's not TOO often. Good reasons include relocation, a substantial (I'd say 25%+) bump in pay, or changing jobs to do what you really want to do. No one will care that you only worked 3 months at The Gap before finding a Web developer job.
Thats pretty much what it boils down to. If companies don't promise that pension at the end, theres no (financial) reason to stick with any employer for any extended period of time. Its more practical to hop from company to company getting signing-on bonuses and playing companies against one another for higher pay than it is to stick with one company for less bonuses, less pay and no pension in the end.
You should move on when you stop having opportunities to learn new skills.
At least in the USA, unless you are union, government employee, etc...a lot of factors can figure into changing jobs. Right now, for the most part, the USA is in an "employers" economy. With fewer jobs, they have their pick, and salaries can reflect that. Unless your job, career is in jeopardy, it might be best to wait it out, if possible. I think it is always a good idea, to have at least 6 months of funds saved up in the bank, in case something happens. Layoffs, plant closings, job loss do to an injury or illness. A lot of people say no way I can save 6 months, I have bills, children, mortgage, car payments etc... A LOT of those things, are CHOICES. People don't save like they use to. I'm one of those baby boomers that grew up with parents that were young, during the depression. Back then, it wasn't a new car, house etc...it was FOOD! Saving money was something drilled into me. Now, when I got out on my own when I was 18, I, like so many, got into a minor issue with credit card debt. Not really bad, just 10,000.00, but it took me a few years to dig out. After I did, I got rid of them, vowed to NEVER have one again, opened a savings account and instead of spending the money I was paying the credit card companies, I stuck it in the bank, never to touch it. Now days, people spend it as fast as they get it. I have a sibling that is like that. Soon as her, child, husband get money, it's off to dinner out, spending it, then once in a while crying to me or another parent or sibling to loan her money for food, mortgage, medicine... Instead of saving, they spend. Now, everyone is different.... Moving from one job to another is a LOT easier, if your personal finances don't have to play into it. One thing you NEVER want to do when leaving a job, no matter how bad a job is, or how difficult the boss, manager is, NEVER EVER burn your bridges. The bridge you burn today, you may have to cross again some day. Also, give at least TWO WEEKS notice. Any time I've switched employers, I always ask the future employer, I'm giving the former employer two weeks notice, and if I accept the new job, and the old employer wants me gone that day, may I start earlier than expected. Never had one say no. When you do leave, don't announce it to everyone THEN tell the manager/boss. You should always go to them first. Then, it should be their decision when to announce it to everyone else. Of course, if you are in sales, NEVER take anything from your past employer in the way of customer information. If you are good at what you do, your customers WILL find you. I'm in the electronic office equipment business in a small/mid size city (less than 250,000 population). I've been doing this for over 30 years. I've never told a customer, when I leave, where I'm going. My obligation is to the past employer until I leave. I have some customers that have followed me for over 30 years, to 4 different dealers. They WILL find you if you are good at what you do, and, I always carry the idea that customers are MINE first, THEN the companies. I work for the customers, but my employer pays my paycheck, is how I look at it. After you do leave, when speaking of your old employer, speak kindly, it's that burning bridge thing...you never know when it comes back to haunt you.
My experience (75 yo, retired engineer) is that there is little left of "corporate loyalty." An engineer who STAYS at the same job for a long time is suspect when applying for a new job. Further, raises are usually meager and far-between, so for salary maximization, periodic job changes are mandatory. Now, with portable IRA's and 401-k's, pension loss is less of a problem.
Go into business for yourself... if your able...
(Yes, n/t = "no text")
Im a contractor, and have been my entire career. At my first employer, i had a list of clients that did not change substantially over nearly a decade. At my current employer, I've been at one location for 2 years.
This discussion is filled with rampant speculation and incorrectness.
I have usually lasted two to three years at a company before the economic environment changes and the company does a mass layoff on its way to a complete shutdown. It's usually followed by periods of unemployment payments. But there was one stretch in the late 90's where I went from one company to another to another and getting more money along the way. But then the Dot-Com bomb fell and it never really came back. Some guys crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon really didn't help things either.
You should change your job by starting your own business, and you should do that as soon as possible. Avoid jobs altogether if possible. Life is to short to sell your time and energy for tokens.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I seem to be a slow mover. 5-8 years between job changes.
And two jobs. One for over 16 years, and going on 19 years at my second.
... 3 years seems to be the "sweet spot".
I'm from Portugal, and working in IT since '99. Have switched jobs a few times, the longest I stayed at a place was 7 years. Usually, I stay around 1 to 3 years. Mostly I move because I feel I need a bigger challenge, or an increase in salary, although I was forced to move a couple of times: a company went bankrupt, and the other terminated the position I was in. Of course, I've been working in outsourcing most of this time.
Of course everybody is different, but changing jobs can also be related with challenge and getting more out of your skills. I don't like that feeling that you get when you know everything by heart and very few things challenge you anymore. Perhaps one day I'll have to stop doing it and "settle down", but so far it has been working quite well for me.
4 rules for a successful work life:
1) Never stay at a job that sucks.
2) Never feel and "loyalty" to a company or boss- they won't hesitate to kick you to the curb if some accountant decides you're over paid or not needed. They have absolutely zero loyalty toward you, you should have none for them.
3) Don't worry about bouncing from one place to another. If someone asks you why they should hire someone who bounces from job to job ask them how long they realistically expect to keep you around, and point out that they laid off XX engineers X months/weeks ago. Then ask them why you should consider taking a position with such an unstable employer. If your history of bouncing is a problem you don't want to work for these people anyway.
4) Don't settle for work that pays the bills but isn't interesting. The job will quickly start to suck. See rule 1.
You should change jobs when you feel like it. Grass isn't always greener though. I usually pay attention to if my co-workers habits are beneficial or toxic, because I expect that to rub off on me.
I don't think there is any harm in changing jobs frequently if you run out of things to do. It's pretty common as an engineer that the project you work in transitions from development to something slower. Contracts aren't a bad way to find your market value. Just keep asking for a little more each time, but avoid having anything end near December or expect a very long vacation.
I have been at my current (temporary) job for nearly 4.5 years, now. It is the longest I have stayed at a job in my life and it has treated me the best, thus far. The job goes away in a couple of months and I have a replacement job lined up. Prior to this, my jobs lasted about 2 years each, on average (shortest 9 months, longest 3 years). As another poster has suggested, my biggest pay increases are usually upon hiring (~20%) in at a new job and after my first year review (~10-12%). After that, it is usually slow going (~3-5%).
Good opportunities for increases in compensation outside of salary is to negotiate more PTO. I actually rarely use my PTO (I use the amount I have to use, else lose), but I like to have it as a nice extra "emergency fund." Another item I like to use is insurance.... since you don't always get to start a new job at the beginning of the year, I like to bring up that I have already reached my deductible or something of that nature and I get a sign on bonus that may help with COBRA payments; To date, I have never used those funds on COBRA, but it is always optional retroactively (up to six months, I believe). My latest tactic is negotiating flexible working arrangements up front; since many IT jobs are effectively on-call 24/7 jobs, I state that I want 2-3 days a week working from home. I tell them that I can be flexible when it comes to things that arise and that some weeks I may work entirely at the office and others may be the entire week from home. I think it gives you much greater flexibility... things come up that need addressed at home, or perhaps issues with the kids... or maybe you just have issues being productive at the office. I also like to use it for extending my travel, so I will work remotely on a travel day and have my wife drive while I work. Let's us really make use of our days off.
Tech sector longevity rising since 2002 though, from 3.2 years to 4.8. Engineering you'll notice has longer tenure, from 5.2 to 7.0 years. that could be possibility for many slashdotters tired of pure IT. yup, you'd have to get some training....
That being said, it has a trap. You will have to save for your retirement yourself. Which means that people who spend their money as soon as they get it, and want lots of it might be tempted to job hop.
So they don't prepare for retirement. Going to try to live on Social security? Good luck with that. The moral is that if you do job hopping, do it while you are young, and save, save, save.
Staying in one or a couple jobs comes with it's own issues. Raises are smaller, promotions fewer. But the retirement options are often better, and you're not likely to need to tap into retirement savings between jobs, as some many job folks I've known.
Dunno if this will help or not, but I did some job hopping in the early 80's after entering the workforce. Nearly doubled my salary over the course of three years by going to three different jobs - ironically, coming back ot the first job I had. Eventually you have to settle down though. After some assignment changes that had me pondering leaving after 15 years on the job, I made the decision that with family and all, I'd hang in there to save up the money for retirement. They had a decent retirement plan, plus some TSA's I could invest in on the side. I ended up with three separate retirement accounts. Another sort of trap, but a nice one. So I retired on my own terms at 55.
So my advice based on my experience would be to job hop as early and quickly as possible when you hit the job force, then go conservative.
Also, do not ever think that a 401K will fund your retirement. You gotta have multiple accounts in multiple places.
And lest ye be accusing me of "Get those damn kids off my lawnism", y'all will find yourself in your mid 50's a whole lot sooner than you think. And that is no time to start thinking about your post-work life. Cuz you'll have one. You think that your job won't be replaced by some recent graduate for half your wages? You might be redundant at age 60 only five years after you got serious about saving for retirement.
Finally, if you think you cant save for retirement - you are 100 percent correct. The people who said there was no point to it during the mid-late 70's, (inflation was the bugaboo then) are the same people who were almost prophetic, because after years of spending their money as fast as they could make it, they can't retire now. Go figure. They did have nicer cars than I did though. There's always that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'd be suspicious of anything under a year. That doesn't mean I wouldn't hire, but I'd want to hear why you left so fast. Hell, I'd even accept "My last employer was bad and made me do X, Y, Z, and thus I left".
The longest job I ever had - 5 years... and I left because they changed overnight and culled all the decent staff - fulfilled my promises, got screwed over, left the next day. Before that, I don't think there was anything under a year but I was working freelance for a while and there not having a client with under a year of service means you're doing well. They just kept buying me back.
What worries me is not serial job-hoppers, it's people with unexplained gaps. It's also people who stay where they are forever (it's easy to know when you're onto too good a thing and just coast... and I've met plenty of coasters who never want to progress and, when they move on, they only have their way of doing things). Sure, again, if you can explain yourself and you come across as so passionate for that job that's probably the reason you stayed, but anything out of the average range needs an explanation.
For yourself? Always look at jobs. How else do you expect to know what the going rate is, what the growing trends are, where the industry is moving, what your competitors are up to, etc.? And every now and then one of those jobs you're casually browsing will seem so much more your kind of thing, and there's NO harm in just applying and seeing what happens. If and when you get the job, that's the time to weigh things up.
I work in independent schools (I'm not a teacher, I do the IT). Once in, as a teacher, your job is pretty much guaranteed for decades so long as you don't screw up. Would you like to know how many jobsites I pick up in my web filtering logs? People keep on top of what's happening, what the competitor schools are doing, where's not a good place to work (you could tell my old workplace was going downhill by the fact that they advertised for an Assistant Bursar, then another Bursar, then another Bursar three months later, etc.), how much you should be earning, what else is about.
Keep your ear to the ground. It helps if you need to leave. It helps with comparisons should be need to go and ask for pay-rises. It helps with knowing what's out there. And it doesn't take any time at all to do.
But time-limits? You leave when you have a reason to leave, and not before. Someone who leaves EVERY year? That's bound to make me wonder why.
Strictly speaking it's not 7 years in the exact same position. I have been 7 years with the same company, in 4 different functions under 3 different managers, but always with the same great colleagues, some of whom have been with the company for over 30 years.
I see a decent-paying job as a means to an end, a steady paycheck lets me have fun with motorcycles, electronics, music, movies, food, traveling, all of the things I enjoy in life. As long as the company is willing to pay me a decent wage, provide challenging tasks and projects (and with some of our applications nearing 30 years old, we see a lot of challenges), and a great social atmosphere among colleagues, I see no reason to change jobs. I also have a decent pension, premium healthcare on top of the national healthcare system and access to very competitively-priced insurance deals and so on. It's almost as cushy as an old-school government job, except I have to do some actual work sometimes.
Eat the rich.
The pattern I've seen time and again is that even if you find an employer that gives regular raises, the market rate for programmers moves much faster than a lame 3% cost of living raise. So, unless you're an assertive extrovert, with a high tolerance for uncomfortable moments with your boss, you probably aren't demanding a competitive raise each year. Easier to just interview every few years and get a big salary bump.
And the employers who lost you? They'll pay much more to replace you, learn nothing from the experience, then repeat the cycle again in a few years.
Ask me about my sig!
I feel morally obligated to stay at a job as long as they'll have me. For me, that averages to around 3 months. YMMV.
Note: It's best not to force the 3 months. As it turns out, employers have this thing called a "Restraining Order" they can apply for and they can actually force you to leave earlier.
If you have a job you like. Don't switch. Switching just for having switched brings you nowhere. Good reasons for switching are: Moving to another city, if you are interested in challenging work then the lack of it, other causes which make you unhappy, money, your personal career strategy, e.g., CEO of IBM.
I'm retired now, but I tended to change jobs every ~2 years. Companies get stuck on this "we can only give you a single digit % raise" thing. The competition didn't feel bad about shelling out a 30-40% raise after getting their butts handed to them a few times. Had I stayed with one company for 4-5 years, I'd have fallen behind badly in salary.
Not to mention a great company this year may easily get plowed under or become irrelevant in 5 years.
Once when I'd changed jobs about 5 times in 6 years, a hiring manager said "Gee, you tend to jump around a lot". When I explained the salary bumps I got for each of those changes and the radically different stuff I got to do at each company, he didn't seem to be that bothered by it.
That working for somebody else is as serf as it gets. If your goal is to be a better paid slave, this is a good strategy. This is the problem I have with Bill Gates philosophy of disinheriting his children. Well, that and Windows 8...
Yep. I've been contract 21 of the past 25 years. My shortest gig was a year and the longest was 7 years. And for that, I've been compensated well. When I started, it was a $35-45/hour occupation with 1.5x for OT. At this point, it's a $65-$75/hour occupation with 1.0x for OT. The only benefits are 80 hours of "vacation/holiday" every 2000 straight time hours (that you can sometimes negotiate into a 2% pay increase), 401k, and access to a health insurance group. I have no complaints.
Im a contractor, (...) At my current employer, I've been at one location for 2 years.
That's interesting... don't you feel more like an employee rather than a freelancer?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
I won't hire chronic job hoppers. To me it's an instant red flag if someone can't or won't stay put for at least 3 years. The learning curve is too steep to waste time on folks with a short term mentality.
A professor of mine said that you should change jobs every five years, because that's how long it takes for your mistakes to catch up with you. ;)
>"and partly because talented people can write their own ticket in this industry"
No, not really. You'd like to believe that you are the best coder around, that you are twice as productive as everyone else, blah blah. Fact is, you're a commodity worker and you can be laid off for offshoring, or a cheaper junior person.
If you have a good resume, like any industry, you can get better jobs and have more choice. But the idea that coders are like big name actors and just need to appear in the right movies... bullcarp.
Chances are you can learn new skills and even move into new functional areas without going outside. It takes perhaps a year to prove yourself and perhaps another 2-3 years to find a project you really like and become an expert in it. At this point, you can make big contributions and resolve problems quickly without working really long hours. Big companies offer long vacations, sabbatical leaves and other official and unofficial perks to retain experienced contributors.
The only catch is to recognized when your company is going sour and don't hesitate to switch then. I have worked in a great company for 10 years, than stuck for perhaps 3 more years longer than I should when it became stagnant and impersonal. Then, after an awful 18 month stunt in supposedly #1 company that turned out to be terrible internally, I joined another with with great culture and plan to stay there indefinitely. It inspires me that one of my best coworkers is 65 years old and lives in senior housing while still having great fun at work.
So it depends, but jumping just because of time is not wise. You may get a raise, but lose all the long timer perks and connections that you made inside.
With respect to contract work to people and places that normally don't see it, it is a net loss.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
on the one hand, it's always useful to remember Charles De Gaulle's comment that, "the graveyards are full of indispensable men."
On the other hand, it's true that if you really *are* talented at what you do, you can often write your own ticket. If you have a specialized skill set and a track record of delivering projects... you'll have a much wider array of job choices. The caveat here is - as you suggest - being a "self-assessed supercoder." If your only claim to fame is "I wrote a piece of software that I think is really great," then chances are you're an average employee.
If, on the other hand, you created something of real and lasting value that's widely used... sure, you'll have no shortage of recruiters floating opportunities by you.
When tech jobs were "permanent" and had benefits, I changed jobs every three years. Sometime it was a different position with more responsibility in the same company. Mostly with a different company.
I've been contracting -- not by choice -- for the last ten years. I've been taking whatever jobs I can get. My last three jobs in the last three years ended after nine months on average. I've also been out of work for three years in the last six years since the Great Recession. Most jobs varied from $14 to $25 per hour with no benefits. Some recruiters say my resume lacks "focus" because I'm not in a position to strategically get certain jobs.
I'm starting a new job next week that offers benefits, paid holidays and vacation time. Although still a contractor, this might get me out of the short-term hell. I'm tentatively penciling out my next job change for three years from now, planning the certifications that I need to reach the next level.
I ran into a coworker while interviewing for a job. He's been in the same position and making the same money when I worked with him nine years ago. He stayed in place and gotten cynical. Meanwhile, I'm making 80% more money than him because I'm on the move.
That's what I'm doing. I recommend it. I'm planning on retiring by years end., at which point I'll have enough money to earn 2-3x what I earn now (which is already 6 figures) and coincidentally will be 20 years on the job.
It's a difficult question. Recent research suggest that you should stay exactly 394 workdays and 193 minutes at your job. Leading headhunters say that one minute less will look like a lack of perseverance and patience on your resume while one minute more will imply laziness, procrastination, indecision and self-complacency.
In engineering anyway, 3-4 years seems to be a good target. Odds are you can get a decent pay bump moving on, bigger than you can get staying put anyway. Most employers who see 3-4 years won't see you as a job hopper. If your current salary matches up with your offers, and the jobs you can find look no better, then at least you know you are doing about as well as you can. If, on the other hand, you find out you could be making 20% more, you know how badly you are being screwed now.
The system is rigged a bit rigged by default. Managers have a lot of flexibility when hiring you, or when trying to retain you, and almost none at annual raise time. They often are given a fixed percentage increase for the department that must be divided up. A 1-2% salary increase to spread around means it will be hard to give anyone a 10% raise no matter how much they deserve it. It is just business, as they say. When you leave for a substantial bump, it is still just business.
I'm in Alanta with a house, wife, 3 cats and 3 fish (pets). It's sounds like you are quite far away from me - guessing Maine.
If I were around you, I'd beg to apprentice with you.
"but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire... ".
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I would strongly advise anyone not to "strike it out" completely on their own, but to find one or two partners at least. If you can't convince one knowledgeable person of the validity of your plan(s) it might be time to rethink them : ).
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Right up until personal responsibility is required, at which point the difference between gov employees and contractors becomes clear.
Hint: Govvies arent the ones who take responsibility.
It seems to me that the benefits to working at the same company for long periods have gone away.
I started as an engineer in the 90's for a very large company that spent a lot of money training its people and on the tools for internal R&D. The company had been around for about 70 years and was full of gray beards doing cool and interesting projects. I think this is where longevity comes from - companies that heavily invest in R&D tend to make Engineers want to stay.
But, by investing in itself, the company built up a huge asset base, and so its fate was to be sliced up and sold off to maximize immediate shareholder gain. In the 90's many larger tech companies with heavy R&D cultures met similar fates. There may be a few left - perhaps Corning, Intel, and IBM... But for the most parts, large companies don't invest in themselves anymore.
Most successful large tech corporation now seem to buy expertise, rather than build from within. They poach people with the right experience or puchase smaller companies and startups that have already figured out the R&D. From the management side, it is the philosophy of the quick fix. But this mindset won't ever keep engineers long term. Either the engineer gets bored or gets poached.
I retired rich at 40, after only 15 years in the industry. You are a complete failure compared to me.
Never stay in a job for more than 4 years. This does not mean "change employers," but definitely don't stay in the same assignment.
Either get promoted, change groups, or make some other change.
If you think can realistically do better than your current job then stay in your current job only as long as you need to for it not to "look bad" that you left. Also try to avoid leaving your current company in the lurch.
"Better" can be defined in a ton of different ways. Interesting work, an opportunity to get your feet wet in a new technology, high pay, low workload, way-above-average coworkers, short commute, etc. Be sure to take into account however many of these matter to you.
As a rule of thumb, I try to stay at least a year unless the place is truly intolerable. So far I've never worked anywhere that I felt justified bailing in less than a year.
It's not a myth. It's just considerably more rare than some folks seem to think. The guys getting hired by financial firms to write their HFT algorithms probably are smarter / more capable than 99% of software developers. Trust me, they're not farming that work out to India.
More close to home, I'm relatively certain that a "cheaper junior person" could not do what I do at my current job. Apparently my employer is similarly certain or they'd find a cheaper junior person to do it.
What are these "jobs" of which you speak?
I'm a design engineer, I leave when the job is finished and move on to the next one. Some jobs are done in a week, others go on for more than a year. The idea of taking a permanent role not directly associated with a job/project is appalling. I sometimes take another job from the same firm if the next project also looks good, but I would hate to get stuck working on a job that is obviously shit/going to fail.
Obviously it's different when you work some boring support job, but in engineering I leave when the job is done.
Your loss, honestly...
After 5 years in a full time job that was really just holding me back, I've become what you'd consider a 'job hopper' - to the point where I just do contracting work now.
I won't be modest - I'm literally amazing at what I do (low level assembler/C/C++, GPGPU, image processing, machine learning, computer vision, etc), and in a short period of time I can often start, develop, finish, QA, and deliver entire projects in half the time their dedicated staff can.
Every client I've had has tried to get me to work full time for them, every client I've worked for literally makes jobs for me now, and I'm never short of work.
Clearly not everyone can do this, it's entirely based on expertise, experience, and talent - but blindly discarding 'job hoppers' or contractors is naive, and you're just shooting yourself in the foot and losing potentially great opportunities. Sure, you won't keep them for 3+ years - but the 6-24 months you do snag them for may be better than you could hope for - people who do this successfully, are successful for a reason.
Too many short jobs is a red flag. Why hire someone who is likely to be gone in a year, it's almost certainly not worth the hassle. On the other hand, there's a huge amount of sampling bias in hiring - the people who apply for a job are, by definition, going to be those people that move jobs the most. When I'm recruiting I look for the person that's going to produce the best return for my firm. So, a truly great engineer that will give me 3 years ranks about an average person that will stay for 5. Someone that will only last a year isn't worth considering either way. It's also worth noting that those people who never last more than 18 months are invariably a pain to deal with and will generally annoy people around them so much as to negate any positive contribution they might bring.
In my job, which I love, I've been there over a year and HR policies restrict annual raises (in the same job description) to a max of 3%. There is a possible max bonus of 5%, so if you max out both, you're doing ok. Of course, your base salary just creeps up, so if you're looking for a big payday, you'll need to move up the corporate ladder (not possible with our departmental structure, unless some people die), play the job title game, or move on. I've got the clock ticking on a 3 year timeline. By that time, i'll have current certs, update to date training, several high profile projects under my belt and I can make the case for a new job description with a different pay scale or I can have a successful job search. Personally, with the money and time the company has invested in me, I'd feel bad about taking off too early, but the 3 year mark seems a reasonable time to determine what the company sees in me and where they see me going.
Seriously, I need some hard data to support my suspicion.
I am 57 years old, and I have been designing and implementing software (and in my early days, some hardware) continuously since the late 1970s. I've just never wanted to sell or manage people or projects. I have worked for 11 companies full time, plus at least three others on a limited or consulting basis. I've only had one job that I held for more than 5 years without a break in service, plus others I left and returned to. In short, I've moved around a lot, and I believe this is the reason I'm still employable. You simply cannot let your career drift if you want to remain employable. You must be thinking, at every moment, about yourself--how does this broaden my technical skills? Help my resume? Contribute to my ability to influence product direction? And if you cannot find a good answer, you need to find another job. Not next month or next year. Now.
I have benefitted from changing jobs every few years, but I never switch jobs after only a year. I'll stay at pretty much any job for a minimum of a year, and I try to stay everywhere 2 years. My career so far has been 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 6 years, 3.5 years, and 2.5 years. I felt like I stayed at the 6-year job too long. It wouldn't have been too long if I had grown in the right way while I was there, but I didn't. I kind of plateued and stayed because it was comfortable.
And that is the reason why I think switching companies every few years is essential, especially in IT. There are just so many things you will never learn if you don't work at different companies, even if the things you learn are simply how jacked up and ridiculous some companies are. I've been at startups, Fortune 100 companies, and companies in between. I highly recommend giving each company your full commitment for at least a couple of years, but always be willing to move on when you're no longer growing your skills or doing interesting things.
I moved to the US from Canada about 10 years ago. Not only did I have no employment history, but the place I had most recently worked at in Canada for the past 5 years had gone bust. And my university degree might as well been from Uzbekistan for all the good it did me. I took the first IT job I could find, as a helpdesk Linux specialist supporting several hundred servers.
When I arrived the Linux infrastructure was in a detuned state. I started fixing what was broken and I am now one of three sr network engineers in the company. I mostly work on whatever grabs my interest, like automating various things with bash/ksh or powershell, optimizing traffic flows through our network, etc. No one bothers me about drifting in at 9 or 10 or wearing flip-flops, and if I need dollars to implement something I generally get it. I've saved the company a s**tpile of money over the years and they know it.
OTOH I work like a dog, just ridiculous hours at times. Although as we all know that is often the nature of IT.
I could make more money by changing jobs. But I basically have complete freedom now and I just don't think I'd have that anywhere else. I'm staying.
From the hire side of the ball to many jobs over a long period of time is a red flag. Put simply if you were first out the door for the last round of lay off's you might not be a highest performer in the pool. If you were cut and then jumped from job to job never sticking I have to wonder...... not impressive enough to keep? headache to manage? low performance or just term of a contract? I have 20-30 qualified folks per position with an aggressive scrub I normally get a short list of 4-6 folks that all might be a good match. From there its really a question of going from the general to the specifics in terms of matching a person to the job I have open..... Why would I gamble on someone who by history is going to jump in a year or less? For those who don't know a hire that does not work out is a point against the hiring manager. If you are a job hopper because you have to be to stay employed or even if you are a high performer but are job hoping because you can..... you are likely not leaving a trail of overly happy managers behind. I.T. is a small world and while it may take some time you may find by your mid 30's or early 40's the offers are just not coming in any longer. Not suggesting you stay in a bad situation or dead end but swap jobs every 12-18 months for a decade and people will start to wonder. In the current climate its not easy to get a head count open....when I am able to get a head count open I know I am going to spend anywhere from 30-90 days in pure ramp up. Learning new process, policy, software and or just how to integrate with the rest of the team takes time. I will have to buy new equipment and or shift around what equipment I have so current staff are not always happy to see a new face. Why does he/she get a new rig? How come the new person gets all the training? Does not matter if its true (we spend on all our folks) what matters is I have to make some investment into a new head count that is usually a bit higher as they ramp into a new role. 6-9 months out you find they just wanted "Health care" experience or "Financial services" experience so they could make their next jump. Great now I have to go back hat in hand and hope I can get a new head count open again. My current staff is scrambling to cover the gap and not real thrilled to have to ramp up yet another new person. Again you may never see me again but you may well run into those folks you left hanging while you were busy padding your resume. Its a great way to make your way up the ladder and I would be the first to agree it may be required when you are stuck in a go nowhere job, or you make a jump and its not a good fit. I see 2-3 jobs over the last 5 years no big deal and then say 3-4-5 years at one place and I have no issues.... I see 8-10 jobs or more over the last decade and my first thought is why gamble. Rock star or not I have already closed your resume and moved on.
It depends. No exact numbers apply here. If you take full control and responsibility for your actions, change when you cannot add value to the company you work for and once you have the opportunity to do so elsewhere. The term "adding value" I chose deliberately. You can only add value (and generally make sense) if you're happy and progressing in the fields you find desirable. IMHO anyway. If OTOH building a career only has to do with knowing people and babbling a lot without going fully into something, then WTF are you doing on /.?
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
So I've been at a place 18 years'ish .. problem is now.. who can you give as a reference (manager-wise) without
alerting your current boss you're "looking" My previous places either don't exist or the people are gone.
The current employer keeps you on projects however I find my skills of "current trends and technology" have
gone by the way-side because the current employer hires in people that are current. I see most of the new
people come and go in afew years, so it's the constant "mentor them" and watch them leave revolving door.
Also my current employer now feels .. well he's been here this long I can pretty much get away with anything
because he won't quit or leave.
Personally there's no loyalty with employers anymore... so in order to keep your skills sharpened and value there
I'd leave in five years.
I have worked for the same company, in essentially the same capacity, for almost thirteen years. And I only have one other job on my resume since college. It is also in my field, and I worked there for five and a half years.
In my position there is no upward mobility. I work directly for the owner, and either design and build all the major projects for my company -- or have veto power over those designs I am not directly responsible for.
And after thirteen years of employment, I make a little over 14% more than I did on day one.
But you know what? That doesn't matter. What does is tha there is interesting work with a talented (and, for the most part, similarly long-tenured) group of guys. We have each other's backs -- I was out for almost 3 months over the course of one year with cancer. The boss is serious about 40 hour weeks, and does time-for-time for anything over that.
I am not the guy who is going to give you 70 hours a week every week -- having an autistic child at home precludes that. But this job feeds my family and gives me the time to give my wife a break from dealing with the kids.
People probably consider my career "stagnant" and there are occasions when a friend or co-worker moves on or up when I winder if I should be more proactive. But to give up the flexibility I get here would require a huge amount of more money -- and, I presume, a corresponding increase in stress.
There is more to life than a job or money. Yes both are important, but most of us will not be the elite minority that turns the world with our ideas.
So, that got a little off track. My point, such that it is: if you are not getting what you need, move on. If you are, consider the big picture.
I retired a little over a month ago. The longest time I have been with any employer has been a little over 3 1/2 years, and most of my career has been working in international development assistance (usually donor funded projects in developing counties with an average contract duration of 2 years).
I did Windows support for a while in Seattle, but returned to my international development niche when my attempt to move from one IT company to another (and learn and do Word support) was blocked by the probably illegal agreements between the IT support companies that they would not hire someone from another IT support company - otherwise I would have stayed with IT support.
I have generally had some really great jobs, in some really interesting countries. It sure beat the kinds of jobs most of my contemporaries have had, and beats my father's and uncles' pre-retirement activities!
Now I am preparing to move overseas (again) and find another fun thing to do!
As long as the industry has a bias towards the very young it will see high turnover rates. If "they" ever recognize that experience holds value in whatever language or task is used then they will see a dramatic drop in turnover.
Your projects run 3-6 months with off the shelf hardware, degrees and experience. Of course you don't have any problems.
You're building NEW systems.... not maintaining systems that have developed over the decades... a big mess of different techs, merged together at different times.
The poster who talked about it taking 18 months to get useful 'work' out of a new-hire is pretty standard.
When you get past 40.... you may begin to develop awareness for more details in the world. Having a narrow focus job for decades doesn't help develop awareness. :)
Personally... I've had over 50 jobs in 30 years. Autism helped a lot... but the end result is that I have a MUCH more complex view of the world and how people operate within it than at least 75% of the people I come across... usually more.
Have a great day!
Different person but...
No, you're still always aware that you're going to be out there the moment you stop making the person who signs off your timesheets happy. You end up with a much narrower focus than an employee. It's a much more one sided relationship - you're there because, right at the moment, you're delivering more value to them than you cost. Should that change for whatever reason (new hire, change in the work they do, etc), then that's it.
I was 50 when I started on my masters at a time when jobs were few. They called me and asked me to turn in an application so they could make a job offer.
Cycle every year if you're a stud. That's about as long as it takes to get a gig, do a good job and set up for the next one while doubling your rate. Eventually you'll flame out. If the gig is good and you can continue, do that. Keep your skills up. You can be fired tomorrow.
Wow, it sounds like you really have it bad in the States.
Here in the UK, after a fixed amount of contributions (1 year I think), by law the pention has to be able to be transferred when moving jobs.
Therefore, that impedament is removed, so when you move jobs, your pention and everything saved in it comes with you unless you choose to cash it out (and loose most of it on Tax and the emplyee contributions to date).
That said, everything else mentioned still holds: If you move jobs too often it is viewed on badly. It depends also upon the job sector you are in. Gerenerally, engineers and technical staff etc stay in one place for a long time, wheereas bankers, mangers and admin staff are likely to switch much more often.
On an average, you should be at a job a minimum of 3-4 years. Anything less than that, and you look less stable. For some things like IT projects, which last barely a few months, it's okay to look like one is job hopping, but usually, such people are either on contract, or with one of the IT Project Consulting companies. But for other roles, like sales, it should be much longer.
Remember, most sales cycles last a minimum of 2 years, so anyone who is at such a role less than that looks like someone who's either jumped or been pushed after being unable to achieve targets. While that may look rough, it is the reality as far as IT sales goes. So if you are in sales, at least be there 3-4 years, and then you'll see really good offers crossing your path
The main reason so many U.S. programmers change jobs so often is because they generally suck at building relationships, have overly inflated egos, look down their noses at their bosses, and regularly deny how real business works. I know this, because during much of my programming career, I was that guy.
Now that I'm older, and wiser, I have come to realize that relationships matter more than egos. And the people that get raises, and promotions. are the ones who build relationships within the organization, and work towards common goals. The attitude of "The Corporation OWES me" and "All the bosses are idiots" are the people who don't get raises.
Murphy was an optimist
Did you look at the markets or companies these people worked for, or whether they were contracting? If not, then frankly you're being an idiot.
There are plenty of reasons to have a series of short jobs. Contracting is an obvious reason, but also if you're in an area/market where there are a lot of startups, etc.
As somebody who has worked in various smaller companies, sometimes the reason for switching jobs is the current or imminent disappearance of said job. In one case the main client (whom my position was also tied fairly close to) left. In another, the company had a good product but real into financial issues. Another company I left after they started paying bills on a last-minute basis (writing on the wall), and yet another was basically a "I'll take this lower-paying rather uninteresting job because the last went under" interim position.
Of course, as I got older it was easier to find more lasting positions, but frankly the short stints each contributed a *LOT* to my experience. Each position had new challenges and knowledge I picked. They just weren't very reliable jobs.
In a era where the economy and job market has taken a kicking, you shouldn't be ruling out talent just because they've had a couple of short hops unless you consider the reasons behind them.
You need to be a "Highly Skilled Wage Slave" to get/retain a job in Globalization.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/pe...
Casteism
Showing up for work after you've been fired just makes it wierd for everyone.
On a related note, be glad you find out you are worthless from a total stranger rather than a family member.
Oh, and don't work for your family's business.
Most people under 50 today will have 40+ year working careers. Do you really want 20-30 different employers over that time?
My personal experience is everyone has a different timer inside, and tends to change jobs on 1.5-2 year, 4-5 year, or 7-10+ year cycles. It is hard for people to break those cycles. Shorter cycles tend to be more performance-based; getting caught over-selling capabilities, and longer cycles are more complacency. People that do project-based work are a little different in rationale, but same kind of timers.
My advice is generally to leave a bad work environment quickly, but try to improve the work environment first before giving up.
As an employer, I avoid people that jump around because it is too expensive to recruit, train, bring people up to speed, and phase them out. If I don't think someone will be around for at least 3 years then they face an uphill battle.
I've always lived the idea that you create your own job. I started out as a nearly invisible young programmer. Now after 27 years I've come to the point that I've created a whole software eco-system around me. My importance in the institution where I work has risen accordingly.
You basically have a choice of finding the right job or creating your own in this business.
A job should be a learning experience just as much as college. By frequent switching you learn a variety of skills and ways of doing things.
During your first few months on a new job, you have to absorb a lot of information in a short time. This is a plus if you value learning.
I have always got far bigger "raises" by switching jobs than I got for working for a company for a long time. Admittedly, I haven't worked for many
companies for more than a year. A couple of times, I switched because of the amount of my raise and got a much better salary at the new employer.
Job shopping teaches you the art or resume writing and interview techniques.
That said, if you are truly happy with your work I wouldn't jump for a small increase.
There are a lot of benefits to job shopping to offset some employers seeing a job shopper as a liability.