[itake]

I spent my 20s following this advice, but now in my 30s I am starting to question it.

When I look up the org chart, the people higher up have been at the company 5+ years. Moving into the higher roles requires the right opportunity, which often takes time to find. Those "right opportunities" are rarely given to people new to the company and are often used to retain existing high performers.

Certainly if you're stuck in your career and are not on a growth path, jump ship. But if your job is promoting you consistently every 2–3 years, then I'd stay.

[sarimkhalid]

You are talking about two different goals. Yes, stay if you want to climb the corporate ladder but if you want to maximize income then one must jump ship. Some people are just not cut out for the corporate route so moving is good advice. These are the people that just transition to starting their own companies in their 30s/40s or consulting.

[mmmm2]

Interesting in that I kind of did the opposite. I stayed at one company for a long time, and then moved more around later in my career.

Perhaps there is an argument for getting to the "staff" level quickly, and then hop around more as it's harder to advance past that level?

[itake]

In my own network and in my current role, I see people that should have left years ago, but they never got the hint that their careers stalled. I would have a direct conversation with my manager to see where the growth is and then verify that with action (Are they promoting other people instead of me? If yes, leave.).

As far as reaching staff and then jumping ship, I have no idea. I started my career 10 years ago and at the time, I thought "senior" was the highest option, but then staff role got created.

I wonder if in 10+ years, the IC ladder will get taller, so people don't feel "trapped" at staff level.

[wonderingyogi]

Title inflation is a thing even with ladders. I know of some non-tech industries where there are 15 levels to climb and at level 7 you were considered a director already.