Loyalty vs Broad Experience

I have another question related to hiring candidates and what most hiring managers value more. Historically, I've placed a high value on loyalty. Employees that have shown tenure throughout their career 5+ years throughout their employment history; however, it seems now that there is a greater value on breadth of experience and that loyalty/tenure, are no longer valued as much by hiring managers. Is 1-2 years at a larger volume of companies preferred?


If so, can you provide supporting arguments for why this is a better. To me, it would seem that this is indicative of job hopping and that if I hired someone with broader experience and shorter tenure at each position, that I would run the risk of losing this employees just as they begin to provide a return on the investment I've made in training them and getting them proficient for the hired role. Again, I'm curious of the perspective of others.

🤝 Interviewing/Offer
🎯 Career Development
🗣 Interviewing
6
CuriousFox
WR Officer
5
🦊
Loyalty doesn't get you paid. 
VPSales_NH
1
VP of Sales - North America
This is exactly what I was sensing and what I've seen throughout my career.  Loyalty gets you taken for granted.

Just like living somewhere with beautiful view. Most people are thrilled with these views for the first couple years; however, over time, they become common place and you forget the beauty that is sitting directly in front of you day-after-day. An A-player, I believe their value and efforts are recognized and highly regarded for the first couple years; however, these skills (over time) are taken for granted and less celebrated. As an employee, if you go 12mo without a promotion or major recognition, your percrived value it on the decline; and you need to be looking for your next employer to wow.

It is unfortunately a condition of human nature that we begin to take things for granted over time; and don't often take the time to celebrate the everyday beauty that sits right in front of us.  
Sunbunny31
Politicker
5
Sr Sales Executive 🐰
Loyalty goes both ways.   If a company is not treating a rep well, either through terrible GTM or poor territory/product assignment, the AE will most likely leave for another company with a better package.   If there's no path for advancement or upward movement, an AE might move on as well.

It may not be so much the tenure, but WHY the rep moved on.  If they get bored easily and keep jumping ship, that's a red flag.  If they are continually bettering themselves and moving to new companies for career advancement or because they got a better offer, that's probably not a red flag.

Finally, what may look like loyalty may just be that it's easier for an AE stay where he or she is if the benefits are just good enough and the situation not bad enough to incentivize a move.  
TheIncarceration
Politicker
0
SDR Manager
I completely agree with this take
TennisandSales
Politicker
2
Head Of Sales
So this one I have more experience in. 

I have worked in 5 different orgs in the last 6 years. 

Longest tenure being 2 years. 

This has not hurt me overall but I do know that I have had to explain my story every single time and really dive into why I have decided to make so many changes. 

I really do feel like my experiences has made me a better AE since I have seen a bunch of different environments. 

With that being said, if I could have chosen to stayed at one company for 6 years I would have done that haha. 

I dont think any recruiter is LOOKING for ppl that have changed jobs as much as I have, 
VPSales_NH
0
VP of Sales - North America
This is an interesting take on the discussion; and I can definitely see that 5 companies in 6 years would raise eyebrows, and warrant explaining; but I'm beginning to believe that 3-4 years is the longest tenure most people should remain 'loyal' to any company.  It seems to me that an employee's perceived value will begin to degrade in the 3-4yr range, when their high performance and consistent success becomes 'common place' for their employer/mananger.  

If you're not being promoted or recognized, you should be looking. Even if you are being promoted and recognized, shopping your experience around is probably still a very smart idea at this time.  On the hiring side, I have never questioned any prospect employee professional history when they've been in positions 2-4 years. Sure, you ask the obligatory questions about why you left; but it is much less concerning to a hiring manager.
TennisandSales
Politicker
0
Head Of Sales
great points! 

If you get complacent you are losing money most likely. Unless you are the top 1% making like $1MM a year or what ever haha
E_Money
Big Shot
2
💰
I have bounced around quite a bit and it has only benefited me (longest time at one company was 2.5 years) I think that is fairly common these days and if you discount people who have bounced around you are really limiting your pool.

IMO a more diverse resume shows initiative and ambition. People who are not complacent and who don't put up with outdated practices or toxic leadership. It also shows a drive to grow, which if you can provide that for them within your company they will be more likely to stay longer with you.
SaaSam
Politicker
2
Account Executive
You can look at bouncing around two ways. A) The candidate doesn't tend to stick it out very long or B) They're good at what they do. They know it, and other companies value their skills.

I tend to lean more toward B if they are spending at least a year at each company before leaving.

If you're good at what you do you have the luxury of leaving for better opportunities. I'd say a "job hopping" resume is more indicative of companies unwilling or unable to compete to keep their top talent.
Pachacuti
Politicker
1
They call me Daddy, Sales Daddy
To move up you often have to move out.