As a recruiter I have persuaded many candidates that the best way to move up the corporate ladder and make more money is to switch companies. I have made some very compelling arguments as to why it would be in their best interest to move out to move up. This is a statement that I believe is true and from my 12 years in the career profession, I have seem many more examples of this being reality versus the opposite.
This is why I was so surprised when I read an article from the Harvard Business Journal that claims the total opposite. According to the research that was conducted, executives that stay put have a greater likelihood of reaching the top.
I think the major flaw with this study is the fact that it is already dated. Although the research that was conducted is current, the fact is that the data is based on executives that who have been navigating their career path for the past 3o years. In the business environment that we find ourselves in today, I think that diversity of experience and having worked for several companies is actually a positive and can help propel you to the top quicker than just being exposed to one company and one business model.
When I am recruiting for executive level talent, there is a preference for candidates that have been with several companies versus candidates that have only been with one company.
I am curious to hear your thoughts about this. In your opinion, do you think it is better to look outside of your company to advance your career or look within your company to move to the top?
This is one of those topics that will be widely debated. Based on my own experiences, I would reccommend that a job seeker look internally first, to see if there is another position within their current company that they can move into. If so, s/he may be considered a prime candidate for the position (especially since most/all training has already been done). If there is nothing to move into internally, then by all means look externally.
All that said, when involved in hiring decisions, one thing I have always looked for is job stability. I am less likely to seriously consider a candidate who has had three or four jobs in the past five years than one who has had only one or two jobs in that same time (by jobs I mean changing employers).
So, I think the crux of it all is to time the changes appropriately. It is one thing to have many jobs with the same employer during a short time frame. But, switching jobs externally in very short time frames often does not bode well with hiring managers.
The idea is quiet interesting and true. It takes long time to climb the corporate ladder within the same company due to several factors .I found it easier to get a good postion by changing the company. GIVING A promotion… was always in the words… BUT…it never came through.
Interesting discussion. No doubt, diversity on a resume definitely is a plus point. However what if I switch too often? say less than two years at a place? Wouldn’t my prospective employer consider me a job hopper and would have his doubts in hiring me?,specially for a position that requires a lot of employee training. Since training requires investment from the employer. Personally I don’t think any employer would be willing to spend time and money on an employee who just might not last. Therefore i think it would be better to look for internal opportunities before looking out of the companies.
This brings up an interesting dilemma. What if you like your job and have no reason to want to leave, but you know that it won’t last forever. You want to be optimally hireable when it comes time to find a new job, but that requires having more diversity on your resume than you actually have. This seems like a realistic situation, so would your advice in that case be to start looking for a new job even while you’re still satisfied with your current one? -Josh
Yeah right. Unless you are a federal or city worker or belong to some union, how many people actually remain at a company. You do not have a choice when they are going to cut you.