Serious question, why does everyone act like you need to stay at a job for years to look good?

I see this advice all the time, especially to younger folks, and it's just wrong. I ran my roofing crew for five years before I sold it, and I hired people based on what they could do, not how long they sat somewhere. A guy I hired last spring had three jobs in two years, but he could lay shingles faster and safer than anyone else. That's what got him the spot. This idea that hopping around every 18 months makes you look bad is old thinking. If you're learning new skills and can show your work, moving up or out is smart. I learned more from changing my own business model twice in three years than I did sticking with the first plan. So, has anyone else gotten a better offer because they showed a clear skill jump, not just a long time at one desk?

3 comments

3 Comments

tyler6141mo ago

Honestly, why would I hire someone who got comfortable over someone who kept leveling up their skills?

noah91717d ago

Saw a piece about how companies that only hire for constant upskilling end up with no one who knows how to fix the old stuff when it breaks. Isn't there value in someone who sticks around and actually understands the whole system? Feels like we're just rewarding people for jumping ship every two years. What happens when everyone is just a collection of new skills with no deep knowledge?

lisa_mitchell381mo ago

Old thinking" is right. Who decided that being bored at the same desk for five years was a good skill? So a person can show they learned three new systems in two years, but we're supposed to act like that's worse than someone who just got really good at using the office coffee maker? Makes you wonder who that rule ever really helped.

-1