Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RelishMule t1_iy8x3ay wrote

This is not a personal finance question, so maybe not the best forum for it, but...

> I on the other-hand like committing to a company.

That works out great if the company is also committed to you. Part of that committment on their end is paying you and growing your career.

> I feel like it cant look good on my resume and hiring mangers would eventually become skeptical....right?

Depends on the industry. A generation ago, you would have been correct. Now, in many sectors, its nearly the opposite and switching every few years is the norm. Might be a red flag if somebody stays at the same company for 10 years with not much growth.

1

CasualFridays047 OP t1_iy957g7 wrote

Sorry Im looking at it in a perspective of retirement planning, personal income decision making, etc. might still not be the correct forum XD

3

bulldg4life t1_iy95ibc wrote

As a hiring manager, I would look at stuff that is less than 2 years as questionable. Especially if it is a repeated thing.

Personally, I may not have room to talk as I moved from one job to another to another between 2015 and 2016. But, three jobs in two years is bookend by 6+ years at jobs 1 and 3.

If I see a resume where every single job is less than 18 months, then I start to wonder why someone can't stick it out. And, as you try to advance in your career, it's very hard to be seen as a valuable contributor if you may be looking at the exit before our first budget planning cycle...

3

RelishMule t1_iy98g82 wrote

> As a hiring manager, I would look at stuff that is less than 2 years as questionable. Especially if it is a repeated thing.

Ya, like I said, is still industry specific. Some its very common, some its still not. 2 years, does seem to be kind of a "magic number" though. Long enough that if you don't get a good bump in pay/promotion and are looking to move, you still gave that companuy the ole college try.

> If I see a resume where every single job is less than 18 months, then I start to wonder why someone can't stick it out.

Even then, if there is clear progression with each move (especially early career folks), I don't think most people will see that as not "sticking it out". If the applicant is switching jobs to advance in their career, I would go into an interview with the assumption that (a) they are working hard enough in their current role to earn that raise/promotion and (b) if there was room for them to move up into the next step at my company, they would be apt to take it if I was paying market rates for the advancement.

of course, if its all lateral moves and short term, that is a huge red flag for me as well.

1

bulldg4life t1_iy9d6f7 wrote

Yeah, I would probably differentiate on early vs late career.

Quick moves or lateral moves later in a career would be far more detrimental than someone in their 20s.

1

jakebeleren t1_iy92rko wrote

>Might be a red flag if somebody stays at the same company for 10 years with not much growth.

Very much this. I notice on a resume if someone had the same title for many years. In my experience it means they were a middle performer at best. Not bad enough to be replace but not good enough to move up.

−1

BannedStanned t1_iy96vib wrote

> In my experience it means they were a middle performer at best. Not bad enough to be replace but not good enough to move up.

Why, hello, Peter Principle.

1