
Ask HN: Acceptable average tenure per job? - steven2012
What is an acceptable average tenure per job?  Is it 2 years, or more or less?  When I see resumes with a bunch of jobs less than 18 months, I definitely pass on them, but is 2 to 2.5 years per job acceptable?  Is this just a Silicon Valley thing?  And is staying at a job for a very long period of time (&gt; 10 years) a bad sign as well?
======
Gustomaximus
Best rule of thumb I've seen on this: 3 jobs/roles over 10 years.

Many people do a quick jump when they've hit the wrong environment, as long as
that is not standard behavior it's OK, and even a good thing. You do want to
see some ability to stick a good company. On the long side, company matters.
12 years at Google would be very different (especially with role variety) from
12 years (especially without role variety) at a stagnant government
department.

------
MalcolmDiggs
I think it really depends on what you're hiring for.

For example: If I'm hiring a business-development guru, or a new CEO, I'd want
to see a track-record of long-term performance and value given to their former
employers. Wanting to see 5 years doesn't seem unreasonable in that situation.
The value they bring is over the long term, I probably won't see a return on
investment from hiring this person until a few years in, so I should make sure
they have long-term horizons.

Then again, if I'm hiring a rockstar engineer, I'd be much much more concerned
about their overall performance and work-ethic than their longevity (because
I'd be happy to have them on the team for however long they want to stick
around). If all they want to do is come in for 6 months and crank out some
projects and leave, I'll probably still be grateful to have them for that
time. Their value is short-term, their value is delivered (and I get a return
on my investment) every day, with every commit and every deployment.

I think it depends on how you're framing the value the position brings to the
company.

~~~
mak4athp
> Then again, if I'm hiring a rockstar engineer ... If all they want to do is
> come in for 6 months and crank out some projects and leave, I'll probably
> still be grateful to have them for that time.

In 6 months, you won't know that your hire is a "rockstar". You'll know that
they were opinionated and that they took initiative. You (and they) won't
learn about the technical debt, unmaintainability, and latent carnage they
left until well after their gone -- which is probably what happened at their
prior employers as well.

If they really ever proved themselves to be that great, some prior employer
would have paid them mountains in compensation just to keep them around and
their resume would probably looked different.

------
seattle_spring
As a hiring manager, I find every situation is unique. If there are a
collection of gigs that lasted less than a year then I almost always pass.
However, one-off jobs with short tenure are not always a negative signal.

As for jobs held for long periods of time, I look at the roles the candidate
played throughout their tenure. Were they an entry level manager for 7 years
straight? I would call that a bad sign. But did they join as an associate
software engineer and work their way up through the ranks to senior staff over
the course of 8 years? I find that an absolutely positive sign.

------
dudul
2 years I would say. 1 year minimum and 3 years max. Past 5 years is way too
long. I automatically ignore resumes with 10 years tenures.

~~~
phaus
>I automatically ignore resumes with 10 years tenures.

Yea, fuck people that want to establish a long-lasting and mutually beneficial
relationship with their employer right? Every other company in the world is
terrified that their employees are going to jump ship, but you apparently
think loyalty is a bad thing.

This is an incredibly ignorant and short-sighted thing to do, but I guess if a
person is drowning in resumes it always comes down to similar tactics so it
doesn't really matter.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you opposed to people keeping the same
job title for 10 years, or do you seriously think its a red flag when someone
works for the same company for a decade?

Maybe my priorities are out of line, but I would like nothing more than to
spend the rest of my career working at a single company that gives me
interesting problems to solve, pays me what I'm worth, and lets me stick
around long enough to forget what its like to worry about whether or not I'll
be unemployed and unable to take care of my family next year.

~~~
dudul
You're right I should have been more clear. 10 years in the same position.

~~~
phaus
Being wary of a person that has spent 10 years in the same position makes it
far more sensible. There are still many types of positions where this is fine,
but there are also quite a few situations where someone might be taking up a
slot that someone else needs in order to move up the ranks.

------
lingua_franca
i've interviewed many guys from big firms like Microsoft or Yahoo! with 15+
yrs of experiences but couldn't even finish simplest coding questions, nor
answer design questions well. i'm afraid their experiences are just "1 X
years".

It's not only about length, but also depth. if you work as a developer at one
place for 5 yrs or so but cannot move up, your market value drops.

------
bbcbasic
In reality you have to know the specifics.

And if everyone else is dumping resumes for not having the right tenure
lengths, then it is +EV (to use a poker term) for you to keep the cvs on your
desk and consider them. You'll get the good hires the others missed :-)

Tenures too short? Maybe they delivered a lot of value in 6 months and were
ready for a new challenge. Would you not hire a builder to build your house
because they did the last one in 6 months?

Tenures too long? Maybe they had lots of challenges and promotions in their
last company. Or they really believed in that company and what they stood for,
but had to leave for some genuine reason and now they really believe in you.

~~~
mak4athp
> Tenures too short? Maybe they delivered a lot of value in 6 months and were
> ready for a new challenge. Would you not hire a builder to build your house
> because they did the last one in 6 months?

No, but I'd be hiring a contractor if that's what I was looking for.

~~~
bbcbasic
So given no other information about a candidate, and you are looking for a
perm, short tenures = bin?

That is fine, but it might mean you pay more for your next candidate (smaller
pool, supply/demand). Unless you have a 'too many CVs' problem, in which case
it is probably as good a filter as any other arbitrary filter.

