My company, with a staff of 40, will spend thousands of dollars in direct costs in our search for a suitable applicant, and thousands more in indirect costs to train a new comptroller. A small hightech firm is hit especially hard: hundreds of hours will be used in the headhunting and subsequent training that could be spent in work-related productivity. The person who left was with us for just 18 months before she took off for yet another “opportunity.”
Were we unhappy with her performance while she was here? Not at all. She was young, intelligent, competent, trustworthy and productive. As comptroller, she was in a pivotal position, with responsibility for all financial aspects of the company, including accounts receivable, payables and payroll. She instituted better financial reporting and controls, brought fresh ideas to management, and participated 100 percent in our organization. She was well liked by virtually all employees and respected by her comanagers.
Was she unhappy with us? Quite the contrary. She was paid a very competitive salary. She received a substantial raise six months after we hired her. Her benefits were above average for a small firm. I gave her a free hand to operate her department as she saw fit. We acknowledged her accomplishments frequently. Her departure had nothing to do with issues involving sexual harassment or discrimination.
Her chances for growth and advancement were excellent. A recent buyout of one of the owners, although it caused a temporary pinch in cash flow, provided the right moment to purchase company stock at a low price. My firm’s tremendous future growth potential would have enabled her to participate in company expansion and to receive a percentage of company profits. She was due for a large incremental raise in a few weeks.
What happened? She found what she felt was an even better opportunity. She admitted that her decision to make the move was an agonizing one. While my firm is firmly established in the hightech computer field, her new employer, although larger than mine, is decidedly low tech, providing farm processing services. The new position offered a small increase in pay and a better job title. Maybe there were other factors in her decision that she didn’t share.
So what’s my beef? The seemingly prevalent attitude among many young professionals that each job is just a stepping stone to that one great job. But these stones are so small that they will ultimately become stumbling blocks to those job hoppers who leap too quickly. I’m certain that more than half the resumes I’ll receive in our search for a comptroller will contain multiple employment histories with an average length of service measured in months that barely reach double digits. I have to assume that most applicants don’t have a clue how much each new employee costs a small high-tech business. Perhaps they do and don’t care. I haven’t reached these conclusions based on one employee. She just happened to be the last straw. Our personnel files are bulging with short-term job seekers’ resumes. Regrettably, we’ve hired some of these short-termers in the past. Now I’m adding length of prior service to my criteria for applicants.
I think a minimum amount of time an employee should remain with a company before moving on is four years. Even at this rate, an individual looking for relatively constant advancement could jump jobs more than 10 times in a 40-year career. Four years provides an opportunity for the employer to recover most of the costs of the employee search. It is difficult, within the framework of most organizations, to promote during the 18 months frequent job hoppers seem to set as their basic timetable for moving on. With a reasonable time spent working at one place, employees might discover that their talents are recognized by employers and rewarded by career promotions and pay increases. Those who commit themselves to a job for a longer period may find it to be financially beneficial, giving personal satisfaction and greater rewards than a series of short hops.
I’m not recommending a lifelong career at any one company. Working for only one organization is an occupation of the past. My parents’ generation was probably the last to see that kind of commitment. And many large corporations have shot themselves in the foot with headline-grabbing massive layoffs that certainly do not encourage dedication among employees. Companies do not hire full-time employees with the intent to terminate quickly. Employers recognize the cost of hiring and training good people and, in fact, are greatly concerned about how to retain competent people. I am suggesting that a token term agreement is necessary. The employee would begin to reap the benefits of pay raises and job advancements, and the employer would profit from the fruits of a seasoned worker’s time.
I don’t begrudge anyone the chance to grow. if that means leaving one company for clear-cut advantages that beckon elsewhere, I’d be the first one to encourage moving on. One or two short-term jobs end up on almost everyone’s resume for many reasons. But when the search becomes habitual and the resume is crowded with unfulfilled opportunities, perhaps the employee should step back and consider the cost, not only to the businesses through which they have blithely waltzed, but to their own careers.
