Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first position, and 1.5 into my second.
Having worked as both, I'd definitely say that scientists change jobs less frequently than programmers. It takes a lot longer to settle into a job, the jobs don't evolve as fast, and it can take longer than one or two years just to wrap up your first project. Data only arrive so quickly.
The supply/demand situation is also reversed: There's a surplus of scientists, and no matter what your field is there's probably not many open positions, so the odds that the alternative job of your dreams will open up during any given year are smaller.
Finally, science is organized as an international guild that respects seniority. If you hold a chair for twenty years you've got more political power. The opposite situation prevails in many subfields of software - you have to turn over your skills fairly rapidly or risk being left behind.
My first programming salary job (did some consulting earlier) was for ~2 years. The person who hired me gave me a series of about 12 promises about what the job would be like, and then systematically broke every one. My second job (huge raise!) only made it about a year, at which point I lost faith in that company and was sick of the long commute.
After that, I did consulting for a while, then took another job for about a year and a half, and moved on and did more consulting...repeat. I did finally land somewhere that I stayed for almost six years before eventually resigning to consult some more, but in general my jobs have all been 1-2 years at most.
I have never been questioned about why I stayed such a "short time" at those positions, and I've only rarely had trouble getting interviews when sending in my resume (the only time really was the period after 9/11, when the country was in shock and, as far as I could tell, no one was hiring). And I get offers from many of the positions I interview for.
So no, I can say categorically that, at least in software jobs, 1-2 years at a job isn't considered problematic, at least if you're otherwise a strong candidate.
If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list.
If they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored and leaving.
As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full time employment. If you (the candidate, in general) leave before then without extenuating circumstances I would probably skip over your resume the next time it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you were.
Searching for candidates is an expensive, time-consuming process, I don't want to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill a position that I recently filled.
I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.
The phrase, "add insult to injury" comes to mind.
The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles so the group is going to be a man down until a new person is hired.
But I'm not sure you should assume a candidate who changed jobs every 1-2 years will continue doing so indefinately, especially if they have only had 2 or 3 jobs. Personal circumstances change and peoples appetite for risk generally decreases with age (and experience) especially once they pick up partners and children along their life journey. Intuitively it feels like a very bad metric for gauging if they are a longer term employee.
If you have high staff turnover the larger factor may be an environment which drives them out. Though admitedly, if you have a say on hiring and don't have a say on the employees working environment then I guess you have few options.
Anyone in that position should probably be the one looking for a new job.
So, wait... you're saying you want employees to commit to you for 2 years, no matter how bad the job turns out to be? Ok, so are you going to commit to the employee for a minimum of 2 years, no matter how bad the employee turns out to be?
Or are you just trying to have your cake and eat it to? Employees don't exist to make your life easier, they're people, with their own dreams, hopes, goals and ambitions... why should they take one on the chin for you, if it might interfere with their pursuit of what matters to them?
It's far from black and white. Context matters. If you're coming from another part of the company I'll check to see what projects you were on. I know a lot of good people that lost their jobs, and others who left, after they were on a string of unbelievably bad projects. But I knew the context of the work and the project they were on and ended up recently making one of the best hires my group has ever done with one of these guys.
After that point? If you're unhappy with your work, or want to try something new, I'll help you find something better. I hired you because I thought you'd be a good fit for the company and ideally I'd like that relationship to continue. To that end I'll ask the all people I know to see what's open and hopefully find you something that's engaging.
Sure, and the corollary is, if a firm lays somebody off after 6 months because their numbers for the quarter took a dip, the employee should pass on them if they come calling wanting them back.
After that point? If you're unhappy with your work, or want to try something new, I'll help you find something better. I hired you because I thought you'd be a good fit for the company and ideally I'd like that relationship to continue. To that end I'll ask the all people I know to see what's open and hopefully find you something that's engaging.
That's a good outlook to have. Glad to hear it. That earlier bit just came off a little bit as "The employee owes us something, but we don't owe them anything in turn." All I'm saying is that "fair is fair."
My experience is that very few firms feel any sense of loyalty to their employees, but they want their employees to be loyal to them. That's what I have a problem with.
I think it's assumed that 2+ years is a normal stepping away point. Personally I've done a nearly 7 year stint, then a 2.5 year stint, and currently nearly a year into my current position. My thoughts are that I wish I would have changed jobs more often for my first job when I was learning, to open up my mind to what was out there. Although I still think it's important to move around. 5 years seems like you're stagnating (unless you're in a position where you are driving the direction).
That said, I have colleagues who have worked in my current company (startup) for 5+ years. However, they are certainly the exception and not the norm.
IME, it's unusual to see a resume wherein almost the entirety of a senior engineer's experience is from 1 organization. I've even heard it described as a potential weakness.
I left my first job about 4 months ago; two weeks from tomorrow would have been my 10-year service anniversary. I definitely think that tenure seriously hindered my efforts to leave said organization (along with a couple other, off-topic issues).
I understand the position of those who believe that should be a weakness, but I don't agree the length of tenure in itself should be a weakness. In that not-quite-10-year period I went from being an electrical engineer, to a systems engineer[1], to a real-time software engineer. Had I parked and done the same thing for 10 years[2] I would agree that it was a weakness. Of course, that has little to do with the organization and much to do with attitude, as one could move companies but not really progress technically as well.
[1] The aerospace/defense kind, not the IT kind [2] There were lots of people who did that, for far longer
For me, having an explanation about each job change is more important than the length of time at any given position.