Hacker News Reader

Spending 10+ years at a company gives you habits, habits that help you get things done at that company but which may not be translatable to other companies. You have to relearn how to get things done in each new company you join, and if you don't exercise that skill, or you don't think about it explicitly, you find a transplanted engineer becomes ineffective.

The trick of course is to manage them through that. And that requires both trust and good communication. Trust to know that you will get there, communication to see how things work (from both sides) and be able to match up skills with trends.

I'm EXACTLY RIGHT HERE, right now. Tomorrow is my last day at my current employer of almost 11 years. I moved to this employer from an employer I'd worked for for 16 years before that.

Things at my current employer are changing (tech stack; from open source development to Oracle packaged software). It was time to get out. And it was hard. I got told by one company I interviewed with that even after having an in-person interview that I thought went well, they didn't want to proceed because they did not think I would fit "in a dynamic environment." Which was crap.

Fortunately, I found a place that respects the skill set that those last 2 positions helped me build up. Looking forward to the new opportunity.

Why is tenure at one company automatically assumed to be tenure at one job? I used to work for a major defense contractor. For every engineer there who spent nearly their entire careers in a particular role on a particular program there was another who spent 20+ years moving from program to program, often as a sort of internal consultant. I would honestly put that latter person ahead of both the former and the person who changes companies every 2 - 3 years if I were hiring.

I'd agree -- the outs for a mediocre developer are sticking in the same position, on a legacy product, for years where they won't be noticed, or moving to a new job after they've settled in but before they reach the apex of showing off their skills.

Being able to build a career moving between projects in a large firm, where your reputation is always right next to you, would be quite a bit more challenging for the mediocre developer.

As the parent suggested, I think there is a certain assumption that--even if they've had different roles within a company--they've become so immersed in a particular culture and worldview that they're less valuable than someone who has a more diverse set of experience. That said, if someone has moved around every 2-3 years, especially outside of startup environments, that's something of a flag too.

I don't think it's always assumed, and I would absolutely agree that someone who has moved around as an internal consultant who may be building things for different parts of the business (some firms might call them SWAT teams or fire jumpers) would be coveted by other firms. It depends on the company.

You reference a 1:1 ratio between engineers in one role and engineers moving around. Based only on my experience I would estimate that ratio closer to 5:1.

I'm sure it depends on the company and how it is organized. We had design groups that handled most hardware and software design. Those engineers only worked on a program until the production design was finalized, at which point they usually went to a different program, sometimes in a completely different city.

We also had a third category, who were the engineers that worked in support activities like manufacturing and failure analysis. They might have the same "job" for years on end, but the job itself changed constantly.

I think that from the recruiter's point of view, there is an argument for either side. I really think that the employee that has been with multiple companies is often more 'talented' overall but they are usually less loyal.

In software - It's highly desirable for an engineer to be adaptable - Changing companies is a good way to expose yourself to different environments/perspectives (and therefore become adaptable). It's hard to get the same range of experiences from a single company.

This is especially true if you want to become a technical manager/lead (or CTO/CIO) - You need to be exposed to different approaches so that you know what works and what doesn't. You need to have a clear picture of what constitutes a good engineering culture vs a bad one.

"I do believe there is often some bias against candidates who had extraordinarily long tenures at one company"

I think that's interesting, because I was recently involved in a hiring process where we had the opposite view - long tenure was a hint that if we could provide the right environment, that person was likely to stay with us for many years.

I mentioned in another comment that I had clients years ago with the view you mention. They were primarily older, larger companies. Startups and small shops liked to see movement. Just based on my experience, I'd expect your employer is traditional and established.

Long tenures can indicate loyalty and good performance, but it could also indicate other situations. Perhaps they couldn't get interviews or job offers from other firms. Maybe they got comfortable and found a place that wasn't too challenging. It could show someone that is risk averse (any job change has risk), or who is non-entrepreneurial. People who are overcompensated also tend to stick around.

Just want to put a link on here to a guy I've seen on HN a bunch of times whose name I recognized:

http://markwatson.com/

Point being that it's obvious he's over 50 and also obvious he's a coding badass.

Inspirational, but he is also obviously exceptional. Not everyone has 16 books under their belt.

The problem with ten years in one company is that you're likely to stay in your comfort zone and not learn enough new things. In an industry that reinvents itself every 5-8 years, the comfort zone is very dangerous indeed.

I'd suggest that moving around (internally or changing employers) usually requires someone to learn new things. People with long tenures in a single company can also learn new things, but it may not be a job requirement - they have to learn off the job.

I think there is still an expectation to stay up to date on technology, even if you do have a long tenure at a single place. You will very likely work on multiple projects over a 4 year period, let alone 10 years, and requirements will change from one project to another. Plus, if you don't know about new technology, you will likely spend a lot of time trying to develop something that has already been solved.

Staying up to date (at least aware, if not proficient) should always be a job requirement, whether you are a new grad or industry veteran.

That is indeed a ridiculous statement. Many of us who stayed at one company for a long time (my case, 28 years) were in many positions over the years continually learning (and teaching) new things.

I have also spent long tenures at a company or two, and also took continuous self improvement seriously. And yet I can think of plenty of people I knew 15 years ago who are focusing on the same kinds of problems and technologies today that they were back then, who have fallen victim to the sweet lullaby of the comfort zone.