No longer than 5 - 7 years. Longer than that and you look complacent. One learns new skills in new environments.
I personally, like to stay at a job as I feel you continually learn things that can help the company out more as time goes on. But a good measure I feel is 3 years because it takes a good year and a half to get a good feel for the company and for the position and all the players.
2 to 3
I’d say between 2-4 years minimum, then make an upward leap.
It depends on the career path.
as a hiring manager, longevity is a good and bad. Good because it shows that you are in it for the long haul. Bad because if you don't grow, you don't show any ambition.
I only have experience in science related jobs. In my opinion, though there is no minimum requirement of how long you should stay for each job, it’s generally not great if you have a pattern to change job within 2 years for a few times in a roll. Once might be ok, however a pattern indicates you might have some significant weakness like communication, or cannot deal with challenges in science. Also if someone stays at each job too short I always feel suspicious of what they really learn in those jobs.
Until you are recruited away or can justify your added value.
Depends on the individual. I do think you should stick with a job long enough to know if it right for you, assuming you thought it might be a growing experience when you started. If not, cut your losses and move on!
At least 1
Depends upon your career goals and personal gratification level
No. determine what you want to learn/gain from a specific role/company and optimize your time there to accomplish that goal (or exceed it). Then determine if your new goal can be met at this company or not.
No, but high turnover will make employers think you are the problem
Anonymously ask a question and let the Comparably Community respond with real answers.
Ask an Anonymous Question