The Longevity Dilemma: The Perception Mismatch Between Candidates and Employers in the Tech Industry

Here’s something I’ve noticed multiple times recently.

A mismatch between what a candidate perceives as long term versus how an employer sees it.

A candidate said in an interview that they want their next move to be long term, at least 2 years. The employer had a much longer term in mind.

I know there’s a big debate around job hopping and how important tenure is to potential employers.

On one side, I’ve seen young, very smart and highly skilled people move quickly between jobs. Simply put they move on once they’re no longer challenged and have little more to learn in that environment. Being upwardly mobile for them is a function of learning and being challenged.

On the other side, an employer wants loyal and technically skilled employees that they’re not going to have to replace every 6 months, particularly if they’re hiring permanent staff through a recruiter like me.

Some employers simply will not have the technical environment to meet the needs of these upwardly mobile candidates.

It doesn’t make the candidates bad employees, it doesn’t mean they lack loyalty. It’s simply a function of their fit for the company and role for their stage of life and growth.

For employers that do employ these young upwardly mobile tech geniuses, either be comfortable with the fact they will move on after 6 months or so, or have the right plan and projects in place that will keep them engaged and learning for the long term. If your tech environment is fairly stagnant and won’t allow for that kind of growth… then you’re not the right fit for the highly technical young people.