Question of the day: Do you think working for the same employer, in the same position for a long period of time is negative?

Today an interesting question for the recruiting community in follow up to the RBC Daily.....

 

Question of the day: Do you think working for the same employer, in the same position for a long period of time is negative?

Tags: Employer, Job, Market, Recruiting

Views: 737

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wow, this is a first for me. I have always considered loyalty and longevity in a job a big plus. Do you think perhaps that was just something the employer came up with because of a "gut feeling" or he/she didn't like what he saw and obviously could not express that?

This is a first for me too.  I agree with Yvette that perhaps it could have been a case where the hiring employer had some other feeling that he wasn't comfortable expressing, so he used longevity as an excuse.  Otherwise, I think that longevity and loyalty are traits most employers would want to see in a potential candidate.

 

Long term career stability can be a good thing as long is it is not career stagnation.  If a person has had increased responsibility over the years with the same company that is a good thing.  However, a person who has turned the same screw so to speak for 30 years is obviously not as valuable.  Sometimes a company wants a candidate who has seen a variety of environments so they can take the best of what they have seen.  That is why consultants are sometimes highly coveted. 

Yes longer than 7 years can be a problem. More so for a recruiter from a perspective that the candidate has an emotional attachment to the company and is more likely to go the distance and bail out when the offer arrives.

That is one employer I definately would not want to work for! Some people couldn't care less about climbing the corprate ladder. They may feel as if they are fulfilling their "calling" in their current position and enjoy their job so much, they don't want to do anything else. What's wrong with hiring someone that knows what they enjoy, what their limitations are, and want a position where they enjoying coming to work every day? Who is an employer to tell me what I need to do in order to fulfill my happiness and contintment through my job? I say put the best people in the positions where they are qualified to serve and want to to be. 

I am actually rather shocked a prospective employer would tell you they don't want a person who has stayed with one company. In my opinion that would tell you the type of environment they might have over there, which could be high turnover. On the other hand it could also be working in one environment for so long has made the skills non-transferable. I guess it really depends on your client. 

I have encountered this as well. In fact, with recruiting for specific positions, some clients prefer varied types of environments. 7-10 years shows stability (IMO) and niche of recruiting.

James,  I absolutely agree. Another thing to look at is upward mobility may not have been an option in that company either. Shame on that employer if this was truly the reason!

James F. Jeter said:

That is one employer I definately would not want to work for! Some people couldn't care less about climbing the corprate ladder. They may feel as if they are fulfilling their "calling" in their current position and enjoy their job so much, they don't want to do anything else. What's wrong with hiring someone that knows what they enjoy, what their limitations are, and want a position where they enjoying coming to work every day? Who is an employer to tell me what I need to do in order to fulfill my happiness and contintment through my job? I say put the best people in the positions where they are qualified to serve and want to to be. 

How much can an employee learn in one organization? Employees & employers tend to get into a comfort zone with a system of work. It's until a new CEO comes to the firm (and we can see how regularly that happens) that a new system is implemented, hence learning grows.

The old cliche's of working for an organization for life or being their for 3 years minimum needs to be shred very finely, as maximized learning can only be achieved by altering industries and changing companies (unless one wants to remain complacent with the limited scope of some exposure)

I would recommend that motivated individuals should change, learn, accomplish, hand over and more on.

Seriously, 7 years? I better start brushing up my resume then :) I cannot say I agree with you, however. I guess it depends on the job. I personally learn all the time and feel that I have gotten better with each passing year with my recruitment efforts!

If everything lines up to the benefit of the new employer and the new employee, there are no negatives...by definition.  That said, two possible obstacles to DELVE INTO EARLY in the process are: (1) was the person in the "same position" because of some "not promotable" characteristic, and (2) in spite of all that stability is the candidate "worldly" enough, adaptable and flexible enough, to embrace with enthusiasm the change s/he will face?  That is, some goldfish only see the water while others learn from looking beyond the glass to a great big world out there.  I would not want to hire the former.

You can never make a blanket statement yes/no since there are too many factors to consider.  What I will say is from a career management perspective you need to keep pace with your peers.  There are three measurements that must remain in balance against your peers (in no particular order): Money, Title and Responsibility.  If either of these is out of balance, so is you career and your opportunities for advancement.

 

Christopher Poreda

ultimatejobboad.com

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsored Video

Marketing Partners

Upcoming Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

Recruiting Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2014   Created by RecruitingBlogs.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

scroll to the top