What's the minimum you want to stay at a job (In most situations)

N2IT

I realize this is going to vary A LOT I am curious to see what members on his forum think? I was thinking a year and you are in the clear, however 2 - 3 ideal. Thoughts?

RouteMyPacket

I think 90 days tops, you could at least justify that you were giving it a chance but was sold on something different than what you got.

I made it 30 days once, wanted to gargle Drano everyday due to the incompetence I was surrounded by. *shudders*

Dieg0M

It really depends. I would say a year minimum before you start looking for something better. If you dislike the place because of the people and want to leave then give them 90 days like RouteMyPacket said. If your thinking of quitting because you are bored, I think its worth giving them some more time to move up in the ranks and get more responsibilities.

Hypntick

For me personally I would say 1.5 to 2 years.

BGraves

^....lol @ route

Just my opinion but I take jobs so I can learn and grow as an IT professional, so sometimes I'll take a pain in the ass job if it'll let me put my hands on things I want to use and learn/master. (I don't mean having someone else pay for my certs, just hands on software/hardware)

After the learning is accomplished, I generally try to decide if I'm being paid appropriately and if the job is something I really want to be doing long term.
If not, I generally start looking for something new to tackle. I think I've had a few jobs that were just a year lately, though this current one will be good for a few while I work on my masters and continue getting to learn new things on the job.

It's an interesting question though, I'm interested to hear other responses and see what keeps people in their job or helps them move along from it.

veritas_libertas

At least a year for me. I don't want to look like a job hopper.

FloOz

It depends on the opportunity that comes up. I just recently left a job that I really liked after 9 months because an opportunity came up that I could not pass up. You have to weigh the pros and the cons. For me it was:

Pros:
- large pay jump
- reputable company that will look great on my resume
- meaningful and innovative work
- free catered bfast/lunch/dinner
- tons of awesome perks and benefits
- super smart people to learn from

Cons:
- farther commute


I do this kind of list with every opportunity that comes my way. I plan to stay at this job for as long as I am engaged and doing challenging work. Which honestly the innovation shows no sign of slowing down.

The Technomancer

I like to stay with a company for as long as I get interesting projects and they keep up with market compensation.

The longest I've ever spent at a job is like 2 and a half years, with most gigs lasting about a year.

the_Grinch

I average about 18 months per job.

Akaricloud

Personally I would say try to average no less than 1.5 years between your current job and previous two. If your last job was only 6 months then try to stay longer the next time around.

4_lom

I think it really depends on the type of organization I am working for at the time.

If I'm working 'in-house' IT somewhere, I'll likely get bored after a few years of working with the same technology everyday. All depends on the position I'm in and how much opportunity I have to learn/advance.

If working for an MSP, my main concern would be for opportunities to advance. In my current situation, I'm starting to realize there is not much opportunity for advancement, and I've been here for nearly 2 years. So I'm think of moving on soon. However, if there was room for me to grow, I wouldn't mind staying here for a long time (10+ years).

Anywho, I'm thinking 2-3 years at one place is plenty if not considering all of the variables. After 2 years you've established that you are reliable and willing to show up to work everyday. You've proved yourself and any potential employers will realize this. Plus (as Veritas said) it's not good to look like a 'job hopper'.

paul78

For me - I look at jobs where I can stay 5-7 years or longer. The exception would be ventures that may a desirable exit-strategy. I suspect that most people's idea of the minimum stay at a job will change as they get further along in their career and personal life.

N2IT

Very interesting responses! @Paul I know you are apart of a leadership team, not sure I remember your role (CIO)? Anyway I know the life expectancy of an executive is ~3 years. The last company I worked for the COO had worked for AAA and Citigroup both 5 year engagements and I was told that was extremely rare. I recall a study showing ~3 years being the norm. Maybe with smaller companies those numbers change.

rsutton

It depends on your target company. I work for a small MSP and if I see that someone has worked at a big company for more than 5 years I generally don't view that favorably. Other companies would likely see that as a good thing. The ideal candidate for me, on paper, would have multiple 2-3 year tenures at different companies.

darkerz

1 year minimum, 2 year desired.

If I hit 3 years, I better have expanded my role, done a lot of projects and have kept busy working my way up the org chart.

LarryDaMan

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, then I stay long enough not to be considered a job-hopper (or 'beltway bandit' here in DC), but not too long as to let my salary/skills/job satisfaction become stagnant. I'd say 6 months is the least amount of time I'd prefer to stay.

tier~

In my opinion as long as you're getting promoted in your desired path every 18-36 months roughly, then you're doing it right. At least earlier in your career. If it's within the same company because the opportunities exist to move up, great. If you switch companies every few years, that works too. It's the <1 year stints that seem to appear as bad mojo.

N2IT

Tier I agree. I have a 3 month contract stint and even with clear explanation and a solid story it just doesn't sit well. You can see it in the interviewers eyes. And to be completely honest, the position was advertised as a 3 month position, I took it to get SQL and reporting knowledge. But even with that explanation it seems wonky.

kohr-ah

N2IT wrote: »

Tier I agree. I have a 3 month contract stint and even with clear explanation and a solid story it just doesn't sit well. You can see it in the interviewers eyes. And to be completely honest, the position was advertised as a 3 month position, I took it to get SQL and reporting knowledge. But even with that explanation it seems wonky.

I actually have a question regarding this. My case I have been at my position 2 months and was just informed that our home office is closing and to start looking for work.

Do I just explain in an interview what is going on? Is it going to hurt me resume wise? I mean I really don't have a choice I need to find work. I can't be without a job.

paul78

N2IT wrote: »

I recall a study showing ~3 years being the norm.

LOL - yes - 3 years is the norm. And we joked about it recently. But I mentioned 3-5 year minimum because I was guessing that people in their 40's and 50's who may have families are probably more likely to not move around companies as much. I would imagine that people become a lot less risk adverse as they get older with other family commitments.

kohr-ah wrote:

Do I just explain in an interview what is going on?

Yes. Those are circumstances that you cannot control and I would expect that it would be understood by most hiring managers. Good luck.

devils_haircut

N2IT wrote: »

I have a 3 month contract stint and even with clear explanation and a solid story it just doesn't sit well. You can see it in the interviewers eyes.

I'm finishing up a 3-month desktop support position as well, but I haven't had any issues with recent interviews. I just tell them it was a 90-day contract that offered me the opportunity to get my foot in the door, and they never seem to have a problem with it. IT contracts seem to be pretty common nowadays, so if an interviewer has an issue with that, they need to get with the times.

N2IT

Keep in mind I am going off of my experiences. I haven't had anyone come out and bash me for the 3 months, but I never have received a positive response either. That's all I am saying - while it might be acceptable it's not a plus or bonus. For the record I hope to stay for 3 years or so. (I'm speaking if opportuties arrive).

paul78

devils_haircut wrote: »

IT contracts seem to be pretty common nowadays, so if an interviewer has an issue with that, they need to get with the times.

If you have a lot of 3 month contratcs because you are a contractor by choice - that may be accpetable. but when you seek permanent employment, the question wil likely raise on why? If you tell a prospective employer that the reason for numerous 3 month contracts that you were just getting a foot in the door, the reaction is likely to be a lingering question on why no one wanted to keep you as a permanent employee. You may want to consider your response if asked.

Bryan0530

I agree... if your learning and growing no need to leave. Make sure your getting the title/promotion and pay also. Around DC a lot of people move quick

About7Narwhal

Depends a lot on why I am leaving. I will easily give a company a year to break me in before I start pushing for more responsibility. But if the job just isn't a fit, I decide within 90 days or so. I think that is long enough to get past the "New Guy" feel and really determine if the company isn't a fit or if you just haven't settled in yet.

A prime example would be my last job: I was there for a year and a half and loved the people and position. But I wasn't growing, learning, or gaining any value aside from a check after the 6 month mark. I hated to leave, but I am in my prime (no Kids, no family) and need to make moves while I can. I now work somewhere that I like less, but I have learned a lot over the past year.