[Cyphus]

Can you explain this one for me? I've always felt that unless one has a tenuous relationship with their employer, longer tenures mean more job security.

I suppose that given enough time in the same role, one would naturally get so comfortable that they can perform their job more or less on autopilot. Combine that with regular raises and I could see how they might be perceived as an expensive employee who doesn't put forth much effort relative to their peers. That would certainly make me worried about being targeted for layoffs. Is that the kind of logic the author is referring to?

[vorpalhex]

You help maintain a system that does X. You do good work.

System X is terminated. You are redundant. You are let go.

Your routine of waking every day and going to work, of getting paid every two weeks and spending that pay, is gone.

Instead, have an important hand in many projects. Don't just be tied to X, also do Y and Z and some of G and L. Have so many projects your own boss isn't sure what all you do, just that you do a lot and what you do is important and scary.

Be unpredictable. If you were to be forcibly transferred to a new division, they should be afraid you might leave. If they tried to cut your pay or demand more hours, they should be afraid of that. Fear and unpredictability are often the same thing.

If you were to be terminated tomorrow, you should be in a place where you may go nap on a beach for six months or write a book poorly or take up meditating. The threat of losing your job should sound like a nice relief and not a threat. This requires controlling your money and your money not controlling you - golden handcuffs are real if you let them be.

[lljk_kennedy]

This just sounds like it would lead to burnout!

[vorpalhex]

What causes you to think that?

[outworlder]

> I've always felt that unless one has a tenuous relationship with their employer, longer tenures mean more job security.

Not really. It's sort of like a bell curve. If you have just recently joined you should be expected to be one of the first let out. The idea being that you aren't there long enough to be difficult to replace.

If you have been at a company for a long time, chances are that you have raised in ranks and received corresponding pay raises. Cutting off your position means a more sizable chunk of the budget can be freed (and replaced with less expensive individuals).

The ones in the middle are generally ok-ish. At least, the individual contributors. Middle managers tend to be replaced without a second thought. Senior leadership are more likely to survive, although sometimes they suddenly finding themselves 'pursuing other opportunities' or 'going into a sabbatical' or even 'spending more time with family'.

No-one is irreplaceable. If you are, unless you are in a handful of key positions, then the company has done something wrong.

Actual 'job security' comes from making key decision makers aware of your perceived value, so that they can remove your name from lists. Assuming that they aren't in those lists to begin with. Note that I say 'perceived value' not 'actual value'. You need to be viewed as important and more trouble to replace than it's worth, no matter how true that may be from a purely objective standpoint.

[imoverclocked]

I recently left a steady income with all of the trimmings to focus on other things for a while. It was really hard to do! I’ve been employed continuously for over two decades and just the thought of not having a job was scary… much of my role was autopilot and not fulfilling at all. If anything, I felt like I was in a state of decay because it was so comfortable. That feeling of decay then lead to insecurity. The insecurity leads to difficulty making change… so I knew I had to do something. Mostly I’m glad I have supportive people around me so I didn’t get stuck.