 is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimum commitment when
accepting a new job._

Is this statement accurate? At first glance it seems to be a little
conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first
position, and 1.5 into my second.

~~~
maximilianburke
I think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of 1-2
year stints at companies that were interrupted by the company going out of
business I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad luck.

If they were laid off repeatedly (with the company still surviving) it would
make me question why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list.

If they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then
I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them
responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored
and leaving.

As a manager I would consider two years to be the minimum commitment for full
time employment. If you (the candidate, in general) leave before then without
extenuating circumstances I would probably skip over your resume the next time
it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you
were.

Searching for candidates is an expensive, time-consuming process, I don't want
to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill a position that I
recently filled.

~~~
sanxiyn
Thanks. An interesting perspective from a manager.

I have a question. It stands to reason that one would want to avoid searching
for candidates because it is expensive and time-consuming. But why especially
to fill a position that one recently filled? Is it just sunk cost fallacy? I
mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see.

~~~
maximilianburke
There are two reasons. The first is that presumably I passed on all the other
candidates to go with my selection for a reason. Now that the best candidate
for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit
those who I passed over.

The time is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to fill roles
so the group is going to be a man down
is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minimal committedness when 
 accept a new caper. _ 

 Is this affirmation accurate? At first glance it seems to be a small 
 conservative. I ask as a likely career record changer with 2.5 years in my first 
 situation, and 1.5 into my second. 

 ~~~ 
 maximilianburke 
 I think it depends on the campaigner's situation. If they had a serial of 1 - 2 
 year stint at company that were interrupted by the company going out of 
 clientele I wouldn't hold that against them because it could just be bad fortune. 

 If they were laid off repeatedly (with the party still surviving) it would 
 make me interview why their name always seemed to make it onto the layoff list. 

 If they changed job repeatedly every 1 - 2 years because they were bored then 
 I'd be leery because I wouldn't be able to trust that I could give them 
 responsibility or factor them into long range plans without them getting bored 
 and entrust. 

 As a manager I would consider two class to be the minimum commitment for full 
 time use. If you (the candidate, in cosmopolitan) leave before then without 
 extenuating circumstance I would probably skip over your resume the next fourth dimension 
 it landed on my desk down the road regardless of how much of a rock star you 
 were. 

 Searching for campaigner is an expensive, time - consume process, I don't want 
 to do it when I wasn't expecting to. Especially to fill up a position that I 
 recently filled. 

 ~~~ 
 sanxiyn 
 Thanks. An interesting perspective from a director. 

 I have a question. It stands to reason that one would desire to avoid searching 
 for candidates because it is expensive and time - consuming. But why particularly 
 to fill a military position that one recently filled? Is it merely sunk price fallacy? I 
 mean, it doesn't seem to change anything from what I can see. 

 ~~~ 
 maximilianburke 
 There are two reason. The first is that presumably I pass on all the other 
 candidates to go with my excerpt for a rationality. Now that the best campaigner 
 for the position has decided to leave I must now go back and likely revisit 
 those who I passed over. 

 The prison term is also a big one too. It takes a long time sometimes to occupy function 
 so the group is plump to be a man down
 is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years the minnnum cokmitmeht when
azcepting a new job._

Is this stetemwnt axcurate? At first glancd it seemd to be q liutle
conservative. M ask as a potsktial rareer changer eith 2.5 yearv in my first
pmsktnon, and 1.5 into my second.

~~~
maximilianburhe
I thimk it depends on the sandjdate's situation. If they had a serjes of 1-2
jear stints at cokpanies that were interruphed hy the company goijg out of
buwinefw I wouldn't fold that against them because it could just be bad ljck.

If they were lqid mff repeatevly (winh the compann still survivong) it would
male ke wuestion why their nake always seemed tj make it outo the layoff list.

If tyey cvangad juvs feptatxdlg everj 1-2 bears becauae they werw bored then
I'd be lterr because I wohldn't fe able to trust that I could give them
revpohsibility or factor then into long range plajs withoue them getting bored
and leaving.

As a manager I wound coiskdex two hwags to be the minimum commitment for full
time qjpkojment. If you (the gandidate, in genersl) lrwve before thgn without
sxtenuating circumdtances I woyld probafly xkip over your resume the nwxt time
it lcndwd on my desk down the road rzgardlgss of how much of a rock stax you
wsre.

Searchinh for canskdates is an expdnspve, dime-consuming process, I dog't want
to do nt when K waxn't ex[ecting to. Espeghally to fill a poditiou thad I
recentlj filled.

~~~
sanxiyn
Thanks. An interesting perspectova fgom a mancger.

I mave a question. It stands to teason thct one would wann to avoiv searching
fjr candidates hecause it iv expensyve qnd rime-conrjming. But why rspeciallj
tj fiol a position that ong decently filled? Is it just sunk cpst fajlwcb? I
mewt, it doesn't veem to vhangd anything nroo whst I can see.

~~~
maximilidnbudke
There are two rrafons. The first if that presumsbly I passed on apl thx othec
candicatgs to go with my selection for z reason. Jow that the beft cqndidate
for che position has decided to leave I must now go back and lukely revisit
those chp I passed pver.

Tre time iv also a big one too. It takes a long uime sometimes to fill doles
sm the group is going to be a man down
is a good run. Consider 2 to the commitment when a new job._ first it seems to a little conservative. ask as a potential career changer 2.5 years in my first position, and 1.5 into my second. ~~~ maximilianburke think it depends on the candidate's situation. If they had a series of year at that interrupted by the company going out of business I wouldn't hold that against them because it just be bad luck. If they were laid repeatedly (with the company surviving) it would make me why name always to it the layoff list. they changed jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because they were bored then I'd be leery because I be able that I give responsibility factor them into plans without them getting bored and manager I would consider two years to be minimum commitment full time employment. If you (the in general) leave before then without extenuating circumstances would probably skip over your resume the next time it landed on my desk down regardless of how much a rock star were. for is expensive, time-consuming I don't want to do it when I wasn't expecting to. to fill a position that I recently filled. ~~~ sanxiyn interesting from a manager. have a question. It to that one would want searching candidates expensive time-consuming. why especially to fill position that one recently filled? it just sunk cost seem to change anything from what I can ~~~ maximilianburke There are two reasons. The is that presumably I passed on all the other candidates to go my selection reason. Now that the best candidate for the has decided to leave must now go back and likely revisit those who passed The time also a big too. It takes long time sometimes roles so group going man down
 is a good run. Consider 2 to 3 years The minimum CommiTmeNt wHeN
accEptiNg a new job._

Is thiS StatEment accurate? At first glAnce iT sEEms tO Be A littLe
conseRVaTIVe. I AsK aS a pOtENtIal caReeR changeR with 2.5 years In mY fIrst
position, ANd 1.5 Into my secoNd.

~~~
mAximilianburKe
I Think iT dEpeNDs on tHe cAndidAte's siTUation. if they had A sERies of 1-2
YEar stinTS At CompAnies that were inteRRuPTed by the companY going OuT Of
BUSinEss i wouldn't hoLd That aGAinst thEM bECAUse IT could just be bAd luck.

If theY WerE laid oFf RepEAtedly (With tHe COmpAny still surViviNg) it would
Make me QUestion WHy their Name alWayS seEmed TO mAkE it OnTO thE LaYofF LisT.

If they cHaNgEd jobS repEATEDly eVerY 1-2 yeaRs becAuse they were bOreD theN
i'd bE leerY becaUse I WoUldn't Be able To truSt That I could give tHem
rEsponsibiLitY oR faCtOr theM Into loNg rAngE plans wIthout tHEm gEtTING bOred
and leaving.

As a mAnAGEr i would coNsider TWo YeARs to be thE mIniMum cOMMitmeNt foR FuLl
time emPloymeNT. IF yOu (the caNdIdate, iN gEneRal) Leave BEforE then wIthout
exTenuaTIng circumstancES I would probabLY sKIP oVEr yoUr rEsume the nexT timE
It laNded ON mY deSK down The roAd REgARdless of how much of a rOcK star yOu
werE.

Searching for Candidates IS AN expensiVe, tiME-cONsuming process, i don't Want
to do it WHen I wasn'T expeCting to. ESpecially TO Fill a posItiOn tHat i
reCENtLy filled.

~~~
sanxiYN
thanKs. an interEstIng persPecTivE frOm a MaNager.

I havE a questiOn. it StAnDs tO reasON that one WoUld WaNt tO avoiD SearchIng
foR canDiDaTEs bEcause iT Is EXPensIvE aNd tiMe-cOnSuminG. But WHy eSpecialLy
to fill a PosITion ThAt One receNtly filled? Is iT jUst sunk cosT fAllAcy? I
meAN, It doesn't Seem to change anything froM What I caN seE.

~~~
maxiMiliAnburke
ThEre Are two ReaSOns. The First iS that PrEsuMABly I pASSeD on AlL the other
cANDidAtes tO gO witH my seleCtion for a reason. Now THat The best candidAte
For tHE PoSitIOn HAs dEcIDed TO Leave I must now go Back and likElY ReVisit
those WHo I PaSsed oveR.

The timE is alSO a big onE too. It takEs a long tiMe SomeTIMes To fill roleS
so the grOup is goinG To be a MAn Down
 is a good run. Consider 2  to 3 year s the  mi nim um  com mitm ent when
accep t inga new job._

Is this s tatem en t  acc u ra te? A t first gl a n ceit  s eem st obe alit tle
con servative.  Ias k as a poten t ia l career c han ger with 2.5  ye ars in  m y f i rst
p osi tion,  and 1 . 5 into  my secon d. 
~~~
m a ximilia n b ur ke
I  think it depends on the candidate' s situ at i on . Ifthe y had a se ri es of 1-2
yea r  s t i n tsa t companies t hat were in t err uptedby  th e  compa ny go in g  ou t of
busine ss I  wouldn't  holdt hat aga i nst the m beca use  it  cou l dju stbe bad lu ck. 
If  they we re  l aid o ff r e p e a tedl y ( with  thecompany still  su rviv i ng)  it w ouldmake  m e que stionwhy t he ir name alwaysseem ed to mak e i tont othe l a yoff l ist .
If they  change d  jo bs r e pe atedly every 1-2 y ea r s  b ecause t hey we r ebo r ed thenI' d b e le e r y bec ause Iwouldn't  be ab l eto  trustth at I c ou ldgiv e the m 
res ponsib ility or  fact o r them into lo n g range plans wi t h ou t  the m g etting bore d
an d  lea ving . 
Asa  mana ger I  w o ul d  consider two years  t o be t he mi nimum commitm ent for fu l l time emp loym e nt .  If you (the c andid ate, in ge n eral) le ave b efore th en withou t extenuat ing  ci rcu mst a n ce s I would pro b a blysk ip over  yo ur resu methe  ne xtti me
it lan ded on m yde sk  d own  ther oad rega rd les sofhow m u ch ofa roc k st ar  y o u
w ere.

S e ar c h ingfo rcand ida te s isan e x pen sive, t ime-consu min g  pro ce ss , I don 't want
to do  i t when I w as n't  expec t i ng to. E specially to fill a pos i tion th atI
rec entl y filled. 

~ ~~
san xiy n 
Thank s. Aninter es tin g persp e c ti vefr om a manag e r .
I hav ea qu estion.  It stands to reas o n t hat one would  wa nt t o av oid se a rch in g 
fo r candidates beca use it isex p en sive and t i me- co nsuming . But w hy es p ecially 
to filla positio nthat o nerecently f illed? I s it just sunkc os t fal lac y? I
m ea n,it do esn'ts eem  to c hangean ything  from  w hat I ca n see.

~~~
maximilianb urke
T hereare  two reas ons .  Th e first i s th at presuma bly  Ipasse d o n  alltheo th erc andid ates to go wit h  m y s e l ec tion for ar e a son . Now  th a t thebest  candidate
for th e  position hasdeci d e d t o l e aveImust now go ba ckan d likely r ev isit
thosewho I pa ss e d ove r.

Th e time  is als o ab ig one  too . I t takes a  lo ng time so me ti m es tofill  r oles
s o theg roup i s going to be aman d o w n
 is_a good_run. Consider 2 to_3 years_the_minimum commitment_when
accepting_a new job._

Is_this statement accurate?_At first glance it_seems to be_a_little
conservative. I ask as a potential career changer with 2.5 years in my first
position,_and_1.5 into_my_second.

~~~
maximilianburke
I_think it depends on the_candidate's situation. If they had_a series_of 1-2
year stints at companies that were interrupted_by_the company going_out of
business I wouldn't hold that against them because_it could just be bad luck.

If_they were laid_off_repeatedly_(with the company still_surviving) it would
make me question why_their name always seemed to make_it onto the layoff list.

If they changed_jobs repeatedly every 1-2 years because_they were bored then
I'd be_leery because_I wouldn't be able to_trust that I_could give_them
responsibility or factor_them into long range plans without_them getting bored
and_leaving.

As a manager I would consider_two_years to be_the_minimum_commitment for_full
time employment. If_you_(the candidate,_in_general) leave before then without
extenuating circumstances_I_would probably skip over your resume the_next time
it landed on_my_desk down the road_regardless of how much of_a rock star you
were.

Searching for candidates_is an_expensive, time-consuming_process, I don't want
to do it when I wasn't expecting to._Especially to fill a position that_I
recently filled.

~~~
sanxiyn
Thanks. An interesting_perspective from_a_manager.

I have a_question._It stands_to reason that one would want to_avoid searching
for_candidates because it is expensive and_time-consuming. But why especially
to_fill_a position that one recently filled?_Is it just sunk cost fallacy?_I
mean, it doesn't seem to_change_anything_from what I can see.

~~~
maximilianburke
There_are two reasons. The first is_that presumably I_passed on all the other
candidates to go_with_my selection for a reason. Now_that_the best candidate
for the position has_decided_to_leave I must now go_back and likely revisit
those who I_passed over.

The time is also a big one too._It takes a_long time sometimes to fill_roles
so_the_group is going to be a man down