Is There Minimum "Expected" Period of Employment?

Question

First Off: If any of my colleagues are reading this, I am not thinking of leaving anytime soon :D

Following a discussion with a friend, attrition rates within software companies (or companies with programmers) came up. Here in the UK it is often "frowned upon" if you move jobs in under 2 years since people think you basically have a "bad attitude" to work.

However, I get the impression that a lot of other developers I know actually move jobs quite a lot. The thing is, I think developers develop (or want to develop) quicker than the business, so it doesn't surprise me that this occurs.

What sort of minimum term do you think is expected for a job? Do YOU move jobs often? What is the "general concensus" in your locale with regards to "minimum term"?

NOTE: Contractual obligations aside.

Answer 1

I consider one year the minimum I'll stay in a (non-contract) job. That's unless something goes very wrong or it's making me unhappy.

That's really more to keep the CV in check and looking healthy than anything else.

Answer 2

I'd say that the minimum should be a year unless something in your life comes up (e.g. loved one moving for a job/school). Beyond that, people tend not to mind as long as you don't leave during the middle of a project (assuming the project won't take another year to complete) and things like that.

That said, I tend to lean towards doing what's best for you. If you're not happy, go. You're working for a business, they understand that people aren't there for fun, they're there for work. Obviously if you've not been there long, you're going to be hard pressed to get more money, but you can always try talking to them if it's something else about the job.

Answer 3

I've been in my current job for 5 years now and I love it. I am still learning new techniques and technologies and so I feel no need to move.

Answer 4

I'll say a year too. But qualify that with several one year gigs in a row is not good. I really like to see two years or more.

My working history has been 'one big project' and not 'lots of little projects'. In my world, developers who jump from job to job to job in quick succestion are flaw for one of two reasons:

1. they can't complete anything or take ownership
2. they are incompetant and either they leave before getting fired, or leave by mutual agreement.

Answer 5

Penelope Trunk, a blogger who focuses on the topic, frequently hammers the point that today's young people switch jobs often (having on average 8 different jobs before they're 30) because they're shopping around for the best place to work. So if we were to accept her supposition as valid, then we would have to accept that a minimum requirement of 2 years employed at a single employer makes little sense. Why would I want to force myself to keep working somewhere when I know I could be working somewhere else that's a better match to my tastes, development goals, etc?

On the other hand, it also depends on the culture your company promotes. If you join a company where people are coming and going all the time, jumping off isn't going to be as surprising as if you leave a company where everyone has been working there for over 2 years.

I myself have blatantly gone against the above, having now worked at the same place for over 2 years and being pretty happy where I am. So, of course, Penelope's rules need not apply to everyone.

I hope that helped somewhat.

Answer 6

I'd consider a year minimum, 2 years as comfortable.

If your c.v./resume is filled with 1 year jobs, interviewers will probably ask why you change so frequently. 2 year jobs, less so and a good mix of ranges from 2 years up and it most likely won't be a talking point.

Answer 7

I've moved jobs a lot lately. I was at my first job for about 7 years but by then I was so far behind the market in what I was earning that I couldn't afford not to move jobs. That was a bit more than two years and three employers ago.

I think leaving in less than a year has nothing to do with a bad attitude. I'm quite passionate about programming and I want to work with people who have the same passion, I want to work in an environment that fit's my way of working. I'm willing to try out some jobs to get there. Leaving a job early can be your bad attitude but usually it's bad attitude of the employer or just a bad fit.

I've been at my current job for about three months now, i've done a lot of business solutions work but in my current work I'm doing more technical systems. I think this line of business fit's me better. I wouldn't have found this out if I stayed at one employer.

Answer 8

My first two jobs post education were less than 18 months each, my current company I have been with for 13+ years.

When I review resumes I have to ask why someone changes job so frequently, its an innocent question, was the company not right for them, or were they not right for the company.

I would be puzzled to see someone with 10 years experience in 10 different companies, I would view them as potentially moving on after a year, but thats human nature.

As a company we have very low attrition rates, its a very in depth subject matter, and most employees are 5+ years.

I think its good to get a solid period of time in a company, move up, grow as a developer in an organization, you gain respect and reward, if you have to move to get this, then ask yourself, I am not right or is the company.

Answer 9

In Italy in the slave market of IT (inflated by the huge mass of amateurs web designer and "script kiddies", with underpaid workers and outsourcing rampage) there are two categories of software professionals.

First the consultants horde, wandering from project to project in a short amount of time; there are some freelancers, but mostly they gather in small bottom-feeders companies which live on the crumbs of third or fourth level outsourcing. In this microcosm "mininum term" and other deontological issues are laughing stocks.

Second the small companies trying to attain a minimum level of quality, struggling with the late payments of bigger companies or public administration and health care. Here of course - expecially in the smaller towns - leaving a job in short terms is seen as high betrayal, just because everyone knows each other. Notwithstanding this I witnessed many migrations and returns without consequences, so really, it's just a formal issue.

Sorry for the rant :)

(and for my English)

Answer 10

About a month of being on probation at which point they will then decide if they want to employ you full time and equally as importantly, you can decide if you want to work there full time.

Answer 11

Most of my friends and colleagues split neatly into the 'work to live' and 'live to work' camps. The former settle in the first place that meets their minimum requirements and never move. The latter seem to value projects over companies and hence switch every 12-18 months, which works out fine as long as they can sell the story that they are technology driven rather than incapable of settling.

Its certainly the case that in the last decade it has become more and more acceptable to change jobs frequently. But the more positions you have at < 2years the more you will be asked to justify yourself at interview.

Answer 12

Rule of the thumb basically, but

• If you spend less than half-a-year in a company the company is either notoriously bad or you just wasted half a year of your time.
• If you spend a year in the company and it is OK but you could do better - you could start looking for another job
• If you feel that you still can learn new things, that you're could teach other people and could make a difference. Most importantly if you're not bored to death - it would be stupid to leave your work at that point, two years or not.

P.S. I work for the same employeer for 7 years now but never for more than two years with the same client :)

Answer 13

Thanks to a mate who has been in recruitment in Oz for nearly twenty years (G'day Geoff) I know of some companies that won't look at you if you have been at the same company for ages.

They are after a variety of experiences and especially interested in the fact of your working in different environments with different problem solving techniques.

Basically, that you've got a broad toolbox!

Hmm. That sounds like a euphemism for something! (-:

But then, to muddy the waters, there's plenty of conservative companies who get very nervous looking at you if you haven't spent ten years working at the same company!

Oh, well.

Answer 14

I'm recruiting at the moment, I wouldn't say less than 2 years is frowned upon as such - it's something you'd have to explain at interview.

From my point of view (as the hiring manager) a new developer is very expensive. The recruitment agency takes 1/4 to 1/3 of the new starter's salary. Then, even if they're very competent, it takes a while for them to get up to speed with our products, technologies used and to fit into the team.

If I hire someone who only stays a year I only get effectively 1/4 of that year's salary in work back. The real value comes in year two and on.

When recruiting I want to know that if you take this job you'll still be here next year.

For that reason (and because there are a lot of CVs out there) I tend to discard ones with more than two or three short placements in succession. If they do make it through to interview they will get questioned heavily about it.

It's nothing to do with attitude - I don't think someone who jumps jobs every year has a bad one - they may even be broadening their skills. I just don't want to pay for them to do that and not get it back.

Answer 15

One year minimum, two years is adequate (for a non-contract job) is a good rule-of-thumb.

I think it's acceptable to have 1 exception to the above on your resume/CV. I was at a job less than a month and left because they mis-represented the job in the interview. It was a QA job masquerading as a development job.

It's not acceptable if your 1 exception is because on of the other jobs you applied for finally made an offer and it was for more money.

Answer 16

I think the minimum term should be a month. It may take a couple of weeks to get into the culture enough as well as making suggestions to a supervisor about issues with this work environment, e.g. not enough work, suggestions shot down regularly, apathy seeming to be spreading like wildfire. It should take about a week to get a job if one has the network running to find a job even after one starts somewhere.

I don't move jobs often though I have at least one position that I held for only 10 months, but that was due to Visa restrictions. I don't think I could see myself moving often unless I became an independent contractor that would bounce from place to place to keep things changing and prevent me from becoming complacent about legacy issues.

There is no general consensus here though I have seen a couple of times where a co-worker didn't finish their probation period before moving on which to me seems to be a quick shift, though sometimes those people who know someone that knows someone may pass along that so-and-so is looking and here is what they may offer to entice people to join the team.

Answer 17

The minimum is what it takes for your job to stop giving you what you need out of job. Experience, money whatever. Jobs are two way streets. You work for someone so that you're paid and they get to use you abilities to make them more money than they pay you. Swap jobs when you feel like it - just remember that you have to be able to justify yourself at interviews. I stay with my employer because I'm still getting what I need an interesting challenge, good money and working with very talented and cleverer people than me.