This is incorrect as a general statement. I have reviewed several hundred resumes over the last 2 years on which software developers stayed at a company between 4 and 6 years as the median. In the Bay area 4 years is often the vesting schedule for people's first stock option (and it can be the biggest one people get) and I think that contributes.
When I see a resume with a bunch of 1 or 2 year engagements without that person being a contractor it always raises a flag for me to investigate that during the interview.
As in you investigate why their employers couldn't retain their talent?
The way employers view "job hoppers" says a lot about the work place culture, speaking from experience on both sides and both philosophies. (One philosophy solely faulting the employee, the other philosophy recognizing the current state of the industry)
I like to try to understand what someone is hoping to get out of their job. People have any number of reasons for working, from 'putting food on the table' to 'changing the world.' There are a lot of intermediate motivations as well.
I try to understand that because I have a fairly good idea what the job can offer and the extent to which the job can be tailored to help align it with the employee's goals.
I try not to generalize. I start with the thesis that someone who loves their job and that job is meeting all of their current personal goals, will stay working on it until one of those two things changes. In my experience that sort of change generally takes years not months.
When people go job to job to job, it can be simple like they are trying to ratchet their salary up faster than the typical 'annual' raise cycle. It can be complex like they are taking jobs that meet some requirement they have imposed on themselves but they don't actually like those sorts of jobs. Or it can be something else entirely. I'd like to understand what it is so that I can gauge whether or not the person is likely to stick around long enough to have an impact or not.
I know, from having worked at Google, why there is a peak at 12-18 months. I expect it exists at Facebook for a similar reason.
It isn't the one job with the 'short' duration I wonder about on a resume, it is a pattern of short duration jobs. That is a pattern that I ask about when I interview someone whose resume shows a lot of different jobs.
The thing that is wrong is compensation. It is much more lucrative to not be loyal. If you are loyal you are compensated with really slim raises, a lot of times single digit percentages.
I wonder what your context is. I've reviewed many hundreds of resumes from a dozen industries in the USA. 5 years truly is a long time in a single role for any corporate work experience from the last 15 years.
I did some research with an old boss of mine and we found 2.5 years was the average based on the resumes we received. It's different now and specifically different than what it was in the 80's and 90's. I'm fortunate, I've been at my company for 13 years.
Did you just take the average? People with multiple 2 year stints will be over represented compared to the ones with 13 years since you're only sampling people looking for work (opposed to sampling all employees in the market).
Not really. Beware you can be easily replaced in your new company without any compensation. Risk is often not accounted for. If you're a twenty something it's ok, but imagine you're a parent of 3 and you have to switch jobs every two years: unbearable.
>Not really. Beware you can be easily replaced in your new company without any compensation. Risk is often not accounted for.
My perception is that the sort of people who stick around too long have a much harder time getting their next gig when their current job ends (as nearly all jobs do, sooner or later.)
Now, certainly, this has something to do with the fact that people who do badly in interviews tend to stick around longer once they do score a decent job, but I think it also has to do with the fact that interviewing and starting a new job is a skill, and improves with practice, like any other skill, and if you don't have any practice, and then suddenly have to interview in 'hard mode' [1] you are going to have a hard time.
I am one of those people who interviews better than their job performance would suggest, but even so, I personally would much rather swing for a better job while the economy is hot and get fired after a few months (and have to find a new job while unemployed in a hot economy) than ride a company all the way down during a downturn and then try to find a job while unemployed in a bad economy. Of course, that's not really a fair either/or; it's super hard to predict what companies will do well in the downturn while the economy is still doing well. I'm just saying that as long as the economy is hot, the consequences to losing your job tend to be small (unless you have a really serious problem with interviewing; I know some people that are actually really good programmers, but who are... disabled in that regard.) - when the economy is not hot, the consequences of losing your job are much greater.
[1]It's so much easier to get a better job while you have a job than it is to get a job after you've been laid off, both because the new employer will think less of you if you are currently unemployed and because you are dramatically more likely to get laid off when demand for your job role in the economy as a whole is reduced. Getting a programming job in 1999? super easy. getting a programming job in 2002? extremely difficult.
You can easily be replaced at any company without compensation. Like one on my coworkers said, always keep your running shoes around your neck.
I'm prepared to change jobs st a moments notice. My resume stays up to date. I keep my PluralSight account and my network current.
Also keep a savings account with enough in it to cover your expenses until you can get another job. In my neck of the woods (not on the west coast) for the last 20 years it's been about a month at most.
If it can make you feel better, an in office situation would probably have gone the same. Companies and team changes slowly over time, people move on.