[Kaze404]

> I view it as a negative for a candidate to have multiple short term stints (less than a year).

Do you mind explaining why? I would personally be seen like that by you, but I personally consider it a good thing that I was able to "rise" so quickly in my career. I'd like to hear your take on this if possible.

[lostdog]

If I hire you, I want you to be able to stick around long enough to get something done. Typically that's at least 2 years. Staying for less typically makes the hiring process not worth it. Plus now I immediately have to go hire another person again.

[decafninja]

There was a discussion on tenure length in another topic a month or two ago.

I'm curious what you would think about someone who's stayed at one company (same role, same team, maybe some minor increase in responsibility and rank) for 5 years? 10 years?

Would you view someone like that better or worse than someone who has multiple n <= 2 year stints during that time?

My observation recently, having been through interview loops and having stayed at my previous company for 7 years, is that longer tenures seem to be perceived as bad these days at tech companies...possibly worse than multiple short stints. Perceptions of expert beginner syndrome, 1 year of experience * n years instead of n years of experience, laziness, lack of motivation, etc. being typical reasons given.

[lostdog]

> I'm curious what you would think about someone who's stayed at one company (same role, same team, maybe some minor increase in responsibility and rank) for 5 years? 10 years?

It depends. A long tenure means I will check in the interviews whether you were stagnating and just killing time, or growing and delivering on major improvements.

One of the best people I worked with spent 10 years at a very minor company, but the work they spoke about in the interview was extensive, and they took on a huge amount of development work across our entire company once they joined.

[Kaze404]

Makes sense. Thank you.