Is there a rule of thumb on how long you should stay at a job?

N2IT

Listed below are some sentences I have seen regarding this

• The employer don't care about you so you have to care for yourself
• If you don't stay at least 1 year at a job you look like a job hopper
• You should always be looking to move up, even at the cost of your time listed on your resume
• You never know when you next opportunity will come up
• The grass is greener on the other side
• As long as you give two weeks you are good to go

So where do you stand? I ask because I am being tempted with other positions, that pay more money, have more potential growth, and deal with different technology.

Thoughts?

Michael.J.Palmer

As much as I've always hated to do it in the past I have to say that you gotta go where the opportunities are when they present themselves.

I've felt bad about leaving every position I've ever left, but everytime I left it was better pay, so I couldn't fret myself there.

Here's my philosophy on it: No employer is ever going to fault you for wanting to better yourself. If they do then they never enjoyed your work ethic in the first place.

My experience is that most employers are happy for me when I find something else that might be better for my career path. In this world you have to realize that no matter how good of a worker you are, there is always someone else nipping at your heels for your position so your employer will be just fine in the long run.

Feel blessed that you're a hot commodity and don't let opportunities pass you by just because you're afraid of what leaving will do to you.

the_Grinch

I don't put a time limit for how long I stay before I go. If I'm not happy and a better job comes around, I will go with it. I've moved from company to company and did have one employer ask why that was. I simply stated that I was looking for growth and in one case I was being run ragged. Gotta face facts, in these times companies have little to no loyalty to their employees. My current company is fairly loyal to us, but at the same time, if the crap hit the fan I know they wouldn't go to bat for me (as they once told me how expendable I was lol).

Essendon

There aint a rule of thumb, but I reckon you start looking

> if one hasnt been learning for 3-6 months or more, as in you are stagnating
> if the pay is crap and your family is growing
> if you know the company is going to go bust shortly (no brainer, I know)
> if you've broken so many things around the network that your account has been restricted
> you learn of an opportunity that's too good to pass up
> and many more reasons!

IMO, if you feel the time is right, it probably is. Like the Grinch said, these days everyone is expendable. There will always be someone to replace you, so do what you gotta do. As for job-hopping, this would only raise any eyebrow or two if you changed jobs say, 2-3 times year. Apart from that, I dont think anyone would complain. Even if they did, there would be a solid reason for you to offer.

Do what's best for you and your family.

higherho

I just had this experience very recently. I've with the same company for 16 months now and received three promotions. 5 months into the help desk gig, I felt that I maxed out everything that position has to offer and started to do SA work because I was bored and wanted to learn. When the position (SA) was offered I took it, but if the one person did not leave and I would've been stuck in help desk for a year or more. If that happened then I would have left.

when I got my first System administration position and 7 months passed again I got that same feeling that I was reaching the ceiling cap in what the position could offer me. I learned all the tools we used, master the main responsibilities I was in charge of and did extra work. I started to study at work for certifications and to me if I had time to study then I did not have enough work to do. SO I started looking around in the company for a higher SA position because the current SAs were not going to leave.

Which leads me to my current position which is an SA that controls all the keys to the kingdom and much more. In this spot I am a Network Admin / engineer and a Systems Admin / engineer (a lot of work for just one guy in a development based network). I have so much to do / learn /expand on (IIS, SANS, NLB's, ASA's, VPN concentrators, etc) that I feel I could stay in this position for 5 years and not once get bored (going through a tech refresh right now which seems to happen every 3 to 5 years).

So what I'm trying ot say is if you cannot learn anything at your job then its time to move on or you will be left behind by other IT professionals. Plus when you get that 2 / 3 years experience and still making 40k then I would leave if more money was presented. I had a friend who left making 40k at once job which had the same amount of work I do now and he is making 80k.

Boredom / Money main two principles for me (of course their are other reasons but those are the two biggest).

Essendon wrote: »

There aint a rule of thumb, but I reckon you start looking

> if one hasnt been learning for 3-6 months or more, as in you are stagnating
> if the pay is crap and your family is growing
> if you know the company is going to go bust shortly (no brainer, I know)
> if you've broken so many things around the network that your account has been restricted
> you learn of an opportunity that's too good to pass up
> and many more reasons!

IMO, if you feel the time is right, it probably is. Like the Grinch said, these days everyone is expendable. There will always be someone to replace you, so do what you gotta do. As for job-hopping, this would only raise any eyebrow or two if you changed jobs say, 2-3 times year. Apart from that, I dont think anyone would complain. Even if they did, there would be a solid reason for you to offer.

Do what's best for you and your family.

If you are the only SA in a network and you got restricted to your own domain then I would defiantly worry lol

Armymanis

I agree with the method that if you are not learning at your job then to move on and also that you have to stay at least a year in the job. Basically, I have been in retail all my working life (21 now). Through the 5 years of retail, I believe I have learned everything that an employee could learn as far as helping customers. I moved around a lot during the 5 years looking for better opportunities in retail and found none.

When I graduated high school at 18, I started learning the wonders of IT and what it has to offer through going to school. I was stuck to retail until this year, when an IT job came to me. I got hired on in may and now I am a contractor and loving every minute of installing PC's and learning about HP products. Once I have found that I can no longer learn, then I will be moving onto help desk. I was even fortunate to find a company that would keep me employed and have me work only during the summer time since I am going for my bachelors in IT and administrative management. Even with my 4 months of IT experience, It will give me an edge on those who do not work summer's while going to school. Keep your chin up and learn as much as you can

powerfool

It really depends on each situation, however I typically stay at an employer for two years (Some have been just a year, others have been three years). It is somewhat the norm for IT positions. However, when I have had a lot of interaction with non-technical leadership (like CFO, etc), they have not learned that about IT and they consider that length of tenure rather short.

Honestly, I hope that I can stay with my current employer for another 4-4.5 years simply because they are highly recognized, offer good pay, and have an excellent 401k matching program that I will not be fully vested in until I have been with them for six years. I would love to stay longer after I am fully vested, but I think I would be short-changing my career advancement if I stay much longer (after this, I need to be at a director level so that I can start positioning myself for a CIO/CISO/CTO position in the future).

How many people have considered their "end game" for their careers? I mean, your compensation can only go so high as a "technician" in most cases, even if you are 15+ years of experience. At that point, you start getting let go from positions in a bad economy because you cost too much; heck, that is why I lost my last job... because I was within the top 5% of wage earners in my company... and I may $22k more now. It is all relative to the company.

My current position, also, essentially offers an unlimited training budget. It isn't really unlimited, but they allocate $10k/year to each person, and it is in a pool for a team. My team is about 20 people, and most folks spend less than $3k/year, so those willing to find opportunities can use the extra funds. There are about 3 of us on the team that push the bar, but we are also highly cost-effective in our training (mostly self-study with borrowed books or Safari Books Online). Unfortunately we have a fixed dollar amount that we are allowed to spend on any one training which makes it rather difficult to do anything like VMWare or Microsoft's MCM... so we have to get creative.

Those are all the sorts of things that factor in for me. The training at my current job is one of those things that keeps me there. Other companies have mentioned how "generous" their offerings are, but they have no idea where I am coming from. This wasn't something that was advertised about my job when I interviewed, either.

Everyone

N2IT wrote: »

So where do you stand? I ask because I am being tempted with other positions, that pay more money, have more potential growth, and deal with different technology.

Tempted as in they are being offered to you? Or tempted as in you've seen job postings and you think you might want to apply to them?

Either way, if you can get the job, than what else is there to think about? You will get asked what your reason for leaving is, and you'll need to have a good answer for that. Career progression is a good answer.

Turgon

N2IT wrote: »

Listed below are some sentences I have seen regarding this

• The employer don't care about you so you have to care for yourself
• If you don't stay at least 1 year at a job you look like a job hopper
• You should always be looking to move up, even at the cost of your time listed on your resume
• You never know when you next opportunity will come up
• The grass is greener on the other side
• As long as you give two weeks you are good to go

So where do you stand? I ask because I am being tempted with other positions, that pay more money, have more potential growth, and deal with different technology.

Thoughts?

I think once you get into senior roles you really need to stick around for 2 years at least. It can take at least that long to get demonstrable results and any company hiring for a strategic lead needs to know someone can hack it and get the job done. That takes time.

rwmidl

I think there is some truth to the statement "companies won't look out for you so you have to look out for yourself" (especially in today's economy). In the end, you have to look out for yourself/your family, so if another company offers something better (be it financial, opportunity, growth) and you honestly feel that you have run your course where you are, then by all means move on.

How long you should "stay" in a position is really a case by case scenario. If you were hired for a position and it ends up being something completely different (ex: hired as systems administrator and you end up just changing copier toner and making coffee) then of course move on. Now if a company hires you, and they put in a good amount of money in to training, you need to make sure there is no clause that says you have to stay X amount of time or you have to pay them back.

Didn't your current employer just promote you to a supervisor/management role? I would stick it out at least a year or so, if anything just to get more management/supervisory experience under your belt.

In closing, I'll also add "the grass isn't always greener on the other side". Just remember that when looking around. Another employer may offer more money, but that could come with longer hours, being on call 24x7, worse benefits, etc...

Turgon

powerfool wrote: »

I mean, your compensation can only go so high as a "technician" in most cases, even if you are 15+ years of experience. At that point, you start getting let go from positions in a bad economy because you cost too much; heck, that is why I lost my last job... because I was within the top 5% of wage earners in my company... and I may $22k more now. It is all relative to the company.

Correct. That is precisely why I advocate that technologists look for opportunities for career growth into strategic, commercially facing roles. Many people have these today with only marginal technical backgrounds. If you are strong technically you already have an advantage in the job stakes providing you are getting other exposure to send you to that level. There is only so much money on the table for people who are good with boxes, and it is falling. Eventually a strategic leader will be forced by the board to make a better piechart. That often means savings on salaries. Tis better to be a hammer than a nail.

Dragonranger

Michael.J.Palmer wrote: »

Here's my philosophy on it: No employer is ever going to fault you for wanting to better yourself. If they do then they never enjoyed your work ethic in the first place.

Idk I went on an interview once where the woman interviewing me was disappointed that I only spent a year at my first job outta high school at Taco Bell.

snokerpoker

Depends on the job and where you are at in your career. It is not uncommon for people to bounce around a bit in the beginning of their career, then land a gig where they stay for longer periods of time. By bouncing around I mean doing two to three helpdesk jobs or gradually moving up the ranks from helpdesk to desktop support tech level 2/3 or "lead", each of which lasting 1.5- 2 years.

Generally, if you are moving up in title and responsibility it doesn't really matter how long you've been at a particular job. With that being said, it does look strange and can raise a red flag if you keep moving from one job to another after two or three months.

RobertKaucher

This is just my opinionon the matter but I have stolen most of the ideas from wise individuals on this forum.

Discounting exceptional circumstances you should stay at a company for no less than a year. I think this is good to give them a chance and to allow them to collect on most of the training that they have had to put you through. It also gives you a chance to really make sure you know how you feel about the place.

If you regularly stay less than a year with a company you look like a risk to them. It's a matter of return on their investment in you as an employee.

I think a healthy time for our field is about 3 years. This gives you time to master your role and really build a professional portfolio. I believe it is unusual for anyone under the age of 40 to stay at the same company in the same role for more than 5 years and and would go on to argue that in our field it is probably bad for you.

N2IT

Turgon wrote: »

I think once you get into senior roles you really need to stick around for 2 years at least. It can take at least that long to get demonstrable results and any company hiring for a strategic lead needs to know someone can hack it and get the job done. That takes time.

Turgon you know I respect your opinion.

I am not looking to move I just wanted peoples opinions. I like the people I work with and I am learning a lot. 6 months or even a year will barely give me any foundational real world knowledge in the field I am so I agree about your 2 + year statement.

Honestly I could spend 5 years in this role and still be learning. Strategy is incredibly political and complex, but it is very rewarding. Leadership is another skill I am learning along with managing. It's a blessing.

Thanks for commenting everyone!

LordQarlyn

Dragonranger wrote: »

Idk I went on an interview once where the woman interviewing me was disappointed that I only spent a year at my first job outta high school at Taco Bell.

LOL! When I was applying for a job at Intel (years and years ago), I told the HR lady I was working at Circle K (A convenience store chain in the US, and China[!], for those who don't know). She respected that I took that type of job. I ended up getting hired.

LordQarlyn

That actually varies with individual circumstances and economic conditions. During the 1990s, the US economy was booming, companies accepted job-hoppers as a fact of life. Many people worked on 3 month projects paid 1099 and not W-2; in one year you could legitimately have 3 or 4 different employers - it was that easy to be picked up again. (I met one dude who would work like 6 months out of the year and live of it for the other six months - in the Philippines).

Today, employers want to see more stability and evidence of long-term employability.

Heck, in the USA at least, more and more companies are now putting in their ads "enemployed need not apply". Totally legal too.

Devilsbane

I wish I had the link (I think I posted it in another thread months ago, so I'll do some digging) but it said that if you have stayed in the current job (company and title) for over a year then you have better be ready to explain how you were taking on more responsibility or new projects because companies don't want to hire some stagnant worker that just shows up for the day and then leaves.

Job hopping like that will usually benefit you too because that is where you will usually find your largest raises.

LordQarlyn wrote: »

in one year you could legitimately have 3 or 4 different employers

Last year I had 4. My previous non IT job (3 years), a work study position from college (1 year), my current job through a recruitment agency(6 months), and then finally working for the company that I'm at when they hired me on. (11 months and counting)

Michael.J.Palmer

Devilsbane wrote: »

Job hopping like that will usually benefit you too because that is where you will usually find your largest raises.

I'll second this, granted my job hopping last year was mostly due to expired contract/project work but everytime I left a position I had another job lined up that paid more than the last did.

I now make almost triple the amount I made in April 2010.

kleos

N2IT wrote: »

• The grass is greener on the other side

"The grass isn't greener on the other side... just a different color"

LordQarlyn

Devilsbane wrote: »

I wish I had the link (I think I posted it in another thread months ago, so I'll do some digging) but it said that if you have stayed in the current job (company and title) for over a year then you have better be ready to explain how you were taking on more responsibility or new projects because companies don't want to hire some stagnant worker that just shows up for the day and then leaves.

That's often easy to explain. If a company is not expanding and/or has low turnover, there's going to be little room to advance. Such situations are common during downturns. Rumor mill has it I was hired as a backfill - because someone literally died in the organization.

Didn't mean you didn't have additional roles, tasks, or responsibilities. Just no change in title or pay.

Devilsbane

LordQarlyn wrote: »

That's often easy to explain. If a company is not expanding and/or has low turnover, there's going to be little room to advance. Such situations are common during downturns. Rumor mill has it I was hired as a backfill - because someone literally died in the organization.

Didn't mean you didn't have additional roles, tasks, or responsibilities. Just no change in title or pay.

If that company didn't have the opportunities to let you spread your wings and fly, then why did you stay there? I don't completely agree with it either. If you like your job, are good at it, and think you are well paid then I wouldn't leave it either. Just be prepared to explain why. Explaining why you were there for 2 years might not be so difficult. But 5 or 10 years is a completely different story.

LordQarlyn

Devilsbane wrote: »

If that company didn't have the opportunities to let you spread your wings and fly, then why did you stay there? I don't completely agree with it either. If you like your job, are good at it, and think you are well paid then I wouldn't leave it either. Just be prepared to explain why. Explaining why you were there for 2 years might not be so difficult. But 5 or 10 years is a completely different story.

Well, I guess I just suck lol!

MC85

Devilsbane wrote: »

If that company didn't have the opportunities to let you spread your wings and fly, then why did you stay there? I don't completely agree with it either. If you like your job, are good at it, and think you are well paid then I wouldn't leave it either. Just be prepared to explain why. Explaining why you were there for 2 years might not be so difficult. But 5 or 10 years is a completely different story.

Because you didn't get another job offer?

I mean you have to look at the reality of the economy...it sucks. There are plenty of people working jobs that they don't want and/or that are stagnant simply because they haven't found another job yet and bills need to be paid.

It's not necessarily that easy to immediately find a new job whenever you want in this economy, especially if you're more of an entry-level/mid-level employee without a huge amount of experience. Sometimes you may just be stuck at a job for a while due to the economy, and I'd think employers of all people would understand that the economy sucks right now.

Just my two cent.

RobertKaucher

Devilsbane wrote: »

If that company didn't have the opportunities to let you spread your wings and fly, then why did you stay there? I don't completely agree with it either. If you like your job, are good at it, and think you are well paid then I wouldn't leave it either. Just be prepared to explain why. Explaining why you were there for 2 years might not be so difficult. But 5 or 10 years is a completely different story.

Now I need to know if you are going to take your own advice here. it seems like, while your skills may be appriciated, they are undervalued. Or have I misunderstood from our previous conversations, Mr. MSCE?

erpadmin

Devilsbane wrote: »

If that company didn't have the opportunities to let you spread your wings and fly, then why did you stay there? I don't completely agree with it either. If you like your job, are good at it, and think you are well paid then I wouldn't leave it either. Just be prepared to explain why. Explaining why you were there for 2 years might not be so difficult. But 5 or 10 years is a completely different story.

If someone is doing helpdesk for 5 or 10 years, I can kind of buy what you're saying. However, once you start going prime time in a sr. level admin/engineering role, 5-10 years in one place can be considered valuable.

Contrary to your beliefs that job hopping every year is healthy for one's career, many managers (like the ones I work for and interviewed me) do NOT like job hoppers. My resume had three jobs that had about 3 years each. My former colleague had given me a great answer to a question I had on how I should explain that, and I used the ---- out of that when it was asked of me at my interview. My future boss recognized that it was a good answer, but was very clear that she was looking for someone long-term. I told her that I was at a point in my life where I'm not looking for a new job; I wanted a career and if the circumstances are right, I would like to make a career out of one place, and hopefully it will be this place. A week later I got calls from my references that they were called and a couple of days after that I got an offer and I accepted. I wasn't trying to sound convincing...I really meant that and it showed.

5+ years at one job is not detrimental to some folks...it shows stability. Plus, in my case, I can definitely show that there has been progression in terms of duties and technology. (I can't support old tech, due to licensing schemes. We have to upgrade, and hence upgrade our skillset...my boxes are all on 2008 R2 and while we're on SQL Server 2005....on our next upgrade, we might be going to SQL Server 2008 R2.) In my case, I'm not going to work everyday doing the same ol' bullcrap.

mikedisd2

kleos wrote: »

"The grass isn't greener on the other side... just a different color"

If the observer (O) looks at his feet (A), he sees the grass "at an angle more nearly perpendicular to the ground and thus sees through the blades of [green] grass to the [brown] ground below." This "desaturates the green." However, if O looks at a nearby field (B), "the more acute angle his line of sight makes with the ground allows less of the brown to reach his eye, and thus green will dominate his perceptual experience."

The Straight Dope: Is the grass always greener on the other side?

I once spent 7 years rotting in a job grossly falling short of my potential and I now can't stand still in a job. I get the urge to jump every 3 - 6 months. Contracting is ideal and the pay is great considering my wife isn't working, but there's not enough opportunity in this one horse town. Or I just haven't learnt to ride any of the other horses yet.

RobertKaucher

erpadmin wrote: »

If someone is doing helpdesk for 5 or 10 years, I can kind of buy what you're saying. However, once you start going prime time in a sr. level admin/engineering role, 5-10 years in one place can be considered valuable.

Contrary to your beliefs that job hopping every year is healthy for one's career, many managers (like the ones I work for and interviewed me) do NOT like job hoppers. My resume had three jobs that had about 3 years each. My former colleague had given me a great answer to a question I had on how I should explain that, and I used the ---- out of that when it was asked of me at my interview. My future boss recognized that it was a good answer, but was very clear that she was looking for someone long-term. I told her that I was at a point in my life where I'm not looking for a new job; I wanted a career and if the circumstances are right, I would like to make a career out of one place, and hopefully it will be this place. A week later I got calls from my references that they were called and a couple of days after that I got an offer and I accepted. I wasn't trying to sound convincing...I really meant that and it showed.

5+ years at one job is not detrimental to some folks...it shows stability. Plus, in my case, I can definitely show that there has been progression in terms of duties and technology. (I can't support old tech, due to licensing schemes. We have to upgrade, and hence upgrade our skillset...my boxes are all on 2008 R2 and while we're on SQL Server 2005....on our next upgrade, we might be going to SQL Server 2008 R2.) In my case, I'm not going to work everyday doing the same ol' bullcrap.

This is really very true. And I want to clear up what I was saying about 3-5 years was not in leaving the company as much as it is expanding your role. If you are stuck doing the exact same thing with the exact same sort of tech for 5 years with no increased responsibility then you are just an IT zombie.