Is the "you must stay in a job for at least 1 year" concept valid nowadays?

With all the competitiveness that there is nowadays between companies, do you still think that one has to stay in a company for at least a year before moving to another gig?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Mow

In my area, I know that longevity is considered a good thing. Then again, there's not exactly a booming IT market here.

markulous

I think it would depend on the situation. If you had a very valid reason for switching jobs before a year, then I don't see the issue. E.g. you were at a help desk for 8 months making 40k, then got offered a sys admin position for 55k, I don't think anyone is going give you crap for it.

kiki162

@yzT Let me guess...bored at your new job?

With how much IT is changing, figure every couple of years if you are still progressing in your career and looking to make more. At some point, you'll have to find a good job, and ride it out till retirement. Lets face it, nobody is gonna hire a 40 or 50+ yr old in an IT position unless you are at an executive/director level.

Mow

Ouch, I'm 40 and still get good offers.

cyberguypr

If I see something better that aligns with my goals and is very attractive I would move on in the blink of an eye, even if I've been at my new place for a week. They only potential problem I see is if say you move 3-4 times in a row this way. The potential new employer may raise the "job hopper" flag.

networker050184

markulous wrote: »

I think it would depend on the situation. If you had a very valid reason for switching jobs before a year, then I don't see the issue. E.g. you were at a help desk for 8 months making 40k, then got offered a sys admin position for 55k, I don't think anyone is going give you crap for it.

Agreed. When I look at a resume if someone has a bunch of short stints that are very similar it might give me pause. Someone moving up, relocated, something along those lines it's not an issue. Sometimes a job just doesn't work out as well.

ratbuddy

kiki162 wrote: »

Lets face it, nobody is gonna hire a 40 or 50+ yr old in an IT position unless you are at an executive/director level.

Hilariously incorrect. Did you just make that up or something?

Danielm7

ratbuddy wrote: »

Hilariously incorrect. Did you just make that up or something?

Like most stats on the internet, yes. I work with an entire team of engineers where the average age is 40+.

shortygirl

Mow wrote: »

Ouch, I'm 40 and still get good offers.

I agree. 40 is not old!

Deathmage

shortygirl wrote: »

I agree. 40 is not old!

I'm 30 I guess I'm still a baby.

...makes me feel better, thought I was a late bloomer into IT.

markulous

Maybe as a software developer age would come into it, but otherwise that just isn't true. If you're good at what you do, you'll get hired at 40 or 50, no problem.

scaredoftests

kiki162 wrote: »

@yzT Let me guess...bored at your new job?

With how much IT is changing, figure every couple of years if you are still progressing in your career and looking to make more. At some point, you'll have to find a good job, and ride it out till retirement. Lets face it, nobody is gonna hire a 40 or 50+ yr old in an IT position unless you are at an executive/director level.

Excuse me, I am 55 and I have no problem getting interviews or jobs. I am not an executive or a director. System Admin/DBA.

Kinet1c

kiki162 wrote: »

@yzT Let me guess...bored at your new job?

With how much IT is changing, figure every couple of years if you are still progressing in your career and looking to make more. At some point, you'll have to find a good job, and ride it out till retirement. Lets face it, nobody is gonna hire a 40 or 50+ yr old in an IT position unless you are at an executive/director level.

I do hope you're joking. Our Sys Admin team has a number of people over 40 and they're some of the most knowledgeable people I've ever met. They just love tech work and don't want to go in to management.

BradleyHU

i think the age issue is not a problem now with our current generation(20-40s), since we're more technically inclined than our parents' generation, and we're able to keep up with change in technology way easier than them.

dave330i

People really love to come up with rules that defy logic and complicate life. I've never bought into the 1 year rule and I never will.

Danielm7

dave330i wrote: »

People really love to come up with rules that defy logic and complicate life. I've never bought into the 1 year rule and I never will.

The problem though is that when hiring if someone sees a whole string of jobs that were a few months, it raises questions as to why. No one wants to hire someone only to have them start interviewing elsewhere 2 months later.

We hired a very high level employee with 30+ years in his field. His last few years were a string of short stints. He could explain the reasons why he left very clearly, all made sense. But everyone was concerned before his interview that we'd be the next short job hop.

soccarplayer29

This thread got derailed, I'm going try to tie this all back together while skirting around the 40+ people have hard time finding jobs topic.

Companies have no loyalty to you and if the right opportunity presents itself then move onto the better challenge/environment/compensation/etc. If I interview and accept a position it's generally because I believe the position will support my immediate job goals at least for the next year...but I can certainly see valid reasons to leave before 1 year. As stated above, consistent job changes may cause a red flag.

More experienced professional workers (40+) typically have more advanced specialized skills and know what they want in an employer/position and are often for settled personally (family/house/etc) and statistically are probably less likely to hop from job to job.

beads

kiki162 wrote: »

@yzT Let me guess...bored at your new job?

With how much IT is changing, figure every couple of years if you are still progressing in your career and looking to make more. At some point, you'll have to find a good job, and ride it out till retirement. Lets face it, nobody is gonna hire a 40 or 50+ yr old in an IT position unless you are at an executive/director level.

You should check out the number of IT folks here with canes and walkers, kiki62. "Leadership" tends to be a bit younger and many techs are grumpy old men. Have I mention old?

@OP. It really depends on the market. Some companies worship longevity and stagnation others like startups and the like definitely not. It depends on the type of position your looking to fill and how WELL you spin your wants and needs to keep growing without sounding like your there for the "training buffet".

-b/eads

N2IT

We all have our own experiences, mine is that anything less than a year gets questioned, if you do it once or twice not so much but I have short termed contracts (even listed that way on my resume) and still get questioned all the time. Not in a snarky manor but not endearing either. This has happened a lot including the position I am working now.

I was told while my experience was impressive and my knowledge surpassed what they were looking for the position, they were afraid that I would bounce when stress hit or you just felt like it.

I reassured them very humbly that I only approached it that way due to being on short termed contracts and having to consistently think about my families well being. That usually seals the conversation and we can move on, but it's uncomfortable nonetheless.

I've spoken with other friends about this as well and it has come up in some of their conversations.

IMHO I believe it used to be 5 years or something like that and has slowly trended and moved towards 1 - 2 years. If I get 2 years I am without fear of the duration. Anything less I brace myself for the impact.

Again this is just my situation, I am not a big wig architect or principal consultant, I just help out on the tactical team.

***One thing to add. The people I know personally who are successful in IT / Business usually have stayed some place at least once for 5+ years. IMO if you can show work effort at least once in your career where you stay somewhere for 5+ that takes the risk out of engaging in short termed efforts down the road. If you come out the gate hopping and continue to hop that looks terrible. JMHO

@OP Good post

MrAgent

kiki162 wrote: »

@yzT Let me guess...bored at your new job?

With how much IT is changing, figure every couple of years if you are still progressing in your career and looking to make more. At some point, you'll have to find a good job, and ride it out till retirement. Lets face it, nobody is gonna hire a 40 or 50+ yr old in an IT position unless you are at an executive/director level.

Well let's hope you're never in a position to make the hiring decisions.

Dakinggamer87

markulous wrote: »

I think it would depend on the situation. If you had a very valid reason for switching jobs before a year, then I don't see the issue. E.g. you were at a help desk for 8 months making 40k, then got offered a sys admin position for 55k, I don't think anyone is going give you crap for it.

Yup!!

TR4V1STY

I read something recently on reddit, i think, that talked about today's young people and technology.

The author argued that kids today have it easier when it comes to tech. Everything has a GUI and is pretty much handed to them.

Older folks had to deal with DOS, they had to tinker a lot more to get stuff done.

I was born in '89, started on Windows 95 and dial up, no cell phones(well, grandma had a car phone lol). I feel like I'm right between the two groups.

Surely there are exceptions to this stereotype but I think the author had a point.

edit: what I'm saying is... Older folks are more likely to have that problem solving attitude, young people seem to give up too easily. Thus, if I were a hiring manager, I would lean towards the older candidate.

yzT

kiki162 wrote: »

@yzT Let me guess...bored at your new job?

I have not even started it, but I don't want to stay long time on it. Even my employer knows this already. I applied for a cybercrime research position, but they considered that due to my lack of experience in malware analysis and reversing, I'd better suit in their pentesting team. As I have said in other threads recently, I see pentesting and any infrastructure-related position sinking in the short-term (it's my opinion, don't go offtopic discussing this), so I don't want to spend too much time on it, time that I could use getting experience in other fields that interest me more (basically data science and cyber threats research). My soon-to-be employer told me that they are not offering the pentesting anymore, just to their current clients, so the transition to the research team would be faster. That's why I'm still considering this position, otherwise I had discarded it.

The point of this topic was that my total experience is composed of three different jobs that add up to one year. It hasn't been my fault, just that those contracts were for short-term positions. However, in my last two interviews (this pentesting one and the SAP Consultant one I opened a thread some days ago), I was asked why I had left those jobs. After explaining the reason, they didn't see it as a big deal. However, over the past weeks I have applied to lots of positions related to data science, and if I got accepted in any of them, probably I'd consider leaving the pentesting job I've not even started yet... Let's say, I stay in this position 3 months max, another short-term for my resumee... although this would be the only one in which I'm the one to blame.

Chinook

TR4V1STY wrote: »

edit: what I'm saying is... Older folks are more likely to have that problem solving attitude, young people seem to give up too easily. Thus, if I were a hiring manager, I would lean towards the older candidate.

An an older candidate, I think your point has some merit. On the flip side of this argument, there are a good number of older guys who are resistant to learning and to change. Back in the early 2000's this was common place when things like Novell and COBOL started disappearing.

Learning in a none GUI environment is usually more beneficial than learning with a GUI. It forces the candidate to have a more in-depth understanding of the OS. You'd be hard pressed to find a Linux admin who only uses GUI who doesn't know the product. You can find a lot of Windows Server admins who aren't entirely competent.

Honestly, I think it's less about age and more about desire. Some people just love tech and are naturally curious. For others this is just a job and they put in the required effort to get paid & close the ticket.