This has been addressed in some capacity in other forums, but I want to frame it this way:
I came to architecture after spending some time in the news media. In that field, there were always these old-timers decrying the lack of employee loyalty. It had become acceptable and, more or less, expected that a young writer or editor might stick around at any given job for about a year. In the old days, so it goes, one might spend one's career at a single newspaper. There are many reasons for this (faster communications, access to more opportunities, greater mobility, cheaper mobility, porn and moral degeneration (just kidding)). Obviously this is my personal example, but the trend seems to be pervasive -- at least in America, among a certain class (young, educated, upwardly mobile, professionals perhaps).
I know this might lend itself to some broad generalities, but I wonder though what might be considered acceptable tenure in architecture these days? I'm interested in the perspective of those who own practices and hire employees, as well as those young designers inclined to hop from job to job, city to city. Is a year long enough?
I'd say that anything *over* a year (even by just one month) is enough, but if you hit a year and quit that same week, then it looks like you've been waiting to do so. That's for a very young person, or for someone who's obviously not thrilled about being there- a minimum. You could probably start expecting a bit more once someone hits a certain age, but I'm not sure precisely what that age is, or how much more you can expect of them.
I think 2 years is an acceptable and reasonable tenure.
Jumping from one job to the other is very common and possibly advantageous in some professions like medicine where the more places you've worked at the better you look in the eyes of a potential employer. However, it's seen as a negative thing in the architecture profession unless you're a freelancer.
I've been working at an office for a little over a year and it already feels like eternity, can't wait to change jobs.
About five years ago there was an AIA survey that indicated that the average intern has 4 to 5 jobs before becoming licensed. NCARB has been quoted recently as stating that the average time between graduation and licensure is 7.5 years. This would indicate an average of 1.67 years per job (though obviously the average has to be made up of some people with jobs lasting less and more than this.)
Not counting summer or part-time student jobs the shortest job I had in my first 10 years after graduation was about 9 months. There were two others that lasted less than 2 years.
I've never once been questioned about "job hopping" nor was I ever asked about the short periods of time that I stayed at a few firms - even in the interviews immediately following those jobs.
But that having been said, I do think that once you get beyond your first few years out of school (maybe 3 to 6 years) it starts to look more questionable if you've never held a job for longer than a year or so. I've certainly asked questions myself of job applicants with 2-page resumes showing 10 or 15 jobs. (One thing that is especially telling is if you see a pattern on a resume of a few years of 1 job per year, lasting about 6 months - because this is the pattern that will allow a person to collect the most unemployment insurance possible per year. I've seen this mostly with itinerant CAD technicians, not so much with architects.)
If I see that someone had a lot of jobs but then settled down for several years then I don't worry too much. If I ask them about frequent job changes and they explain something like "we moved three times due to spouse's teaching jobs but now she has tenure" then I don't worry too much. If someone has one recent 5-month job and says "the firm was not a good fit but now I'm much more clear about my interests/skills and I'm approaching this search more carefully" then that sits well with me.
On the other hand, if they have a series of short jobs and they say things that seem to show disgruntlement/place blame with three firms in a row then that really raises red flags.
It does cost a firm money each time someone leaves and someone new needs to be hired and trained. Human resources types estimate the average expense to a company of every new hire to be over $40,000 (due to time to search and hire and train, lost time due to learning curve, etc.) I think this may be a little high for the typical architecture intern, but the same principle holds true...
So: if you're unhappy or stagnating in a job then take your time, look for something better, and leave. Dont' worry about sticking around until some magical date that will make it ok (though it's a bad idea and may anger people if you leave days after receiving a bonus, becoming vested in your firm's profit sharing program, or anything like that.) It doesn't really matter that much unless you make a habit of quitting quickly.
Good points- there's a big difference between serial job-hopping, and have jobs that vary in length depending on the situation. It's acceptable to stay at A job for a year, or even two or three, but at some point people will be hesitant to hire you if your track record suggests that you'll only last a year.
I read tons of resumes every year ... through that exercise, I decide who I want to interview ... one key lesson from this: too many short-term positions almost always indicates that the candidate has "issues" that I will want to investigate.
Everybody has a reason why they leave a job ... some are legitimate ... some are not ... some are verifiable independently ... some are not ... from the candidate's perspective, it's better if this issue is not a key ingredient of the interview
I tend to view job hoppers as people who aren't really interested in a career ... they tend to view every position they have held in a very self-centered way ... e.g. "this is what the job did (or did not do) for me" vs. "this is what I accomplished during my time at this firm"
I'm definitely a job hopper who is not interested in a long term career in a firm. I'm just using my experience at different firms to finish IDP and get my license before striking out on my own. I'm also using the job hopping as a way to figure out what I like and dislike in terms of office types and project types. None of this makes me what my employers would consider a bad employee.
makes a good point ... "short term" employees are not necessarily "bad" employees and I didn't mean to suggest above that individuals with numerous short-term positions are either bad people or poor professionals ... but, they do tend to have a different agenda from the career-minded.
As an employer, there are times when I need to staff up, knowing the growth may not be long-lived. At such times, I'm more inclined to pursue those candidates whose credentials suggest they don't like to stay anywhere for a long period of time.
However, when I'm hiring for an important strategic position -- like a Project Manager or a Design Architect -- I'm hoping to find someone who wants to stay with us for a long time and build a career here. In those cases, given the investment we intend to make in the successful candidate, it's doubtful I'll even consider interviewing an individual who has held 5 jobs in 4 years.
I think job-hopping is a symptom of the sickness that our profession is mired in. Being laid off, overworked, undercompensated, and generally treated like garbage over and over again has it's consequences.
Fuck them. Job-hopping is a defense mechanism.
... you may be right in what you surmise ... but, a defense mechanism of this type is, in my humble view, self-destructive over time. you're not hurting the firm nearly as much as you may be hurting yourself.
six one-year jobs is not the same as one six-year job, or even two three-year jobs -- I've seen many professionals with resumes offering experience scenarios of either type -- in general (but not always) those with more stable employment records have developed faster and become more well versed in the essential aspects necessary to become a fine architect. mostly, the difference is related to "seasoning" and depth of experience.
but, there always are exceptions.
Apr 19, 06 5:18 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
"Acceptable" Tenure
This has been addressed in some capacity in other forums, but I want to frame it this way:
I came to architecture after spending some time in the news media. In that field, there were always these old-timers decrying the lack of employee loyalty. It had become acceptable and, more or less, expected that a young writer or editor might stick around at any given job for about a year. In the old days, so it goes, one might spend one's career at a single newspaper. There are many reasons for this (faster communications, access to more opportunities, greater mobility, cheaper mobility, porn and moral degeneration (just kidding)). Obviously this is my personal example, but the trend seems to be pervasive -- at least in America, among a certain class (young, educated, upwardly mobile, professionals perhaps).
I know this might lend itself to some broad generalities, but I wonder though what might be considered acceptable tenure in architecture these days? I'm interested in the perspective of those who own practices and hire employees, as well as those young designers inclined to hop from job to job, city to city. Is a year long enough?
I'd say that anything *over* a year (even by just one month) is enough, but if you hit a year and quit that same week, then it looks like you've been waiting to do so. That's for a very young person, or for someone who's obviously not thrilled about being there- a minimum. You could probably start expecting a bit more once someone hits a certain age, but I'm not sure precisely what that age is, or how much more you can expect of them.
agreed, 372 days.
seriously, as a young employee, putting a year in probably accounts for the time and resources that a company puts into training etc.
I think 2 years is an acceptable and reasonable tenure.
Jumping from one job to the other is very common and possibly advantageous in some professions like medicine where the more places you've worked at the better you look in the eyes of a potential employer. However, it's seen as a negative thing in the architecture profession unless you're a freelancer.
I've been working at an office for a little over a year and it already feels like eternity, can't wait to change jobs.
About five years ago there was an AIA survey that indicated that the average intern has 4 to 5 jobs before becoming licensed. NCARB has been quoted recently as stating that the average time between graduation and licensure is 7.5 years. This would indicate an average of 1.67 years per job (though obviously the average has to be made up of some people with jobs lasting less and more than this.)
Not counting summer or part-time student jobs the shortest job I had in my first 10 years after graduation was about 9 months. There were two others that lasted less than 2 years.
I've never once been questioned about "job hopping" nor was I ever asked about the short periods of time that I stayed at a few firms - even in the interviews immediately following those jobs.
But that having been said, I do think that once you get beyond your first few years out of school (maybe 3 to 6 years) it starts to look more questionable if you've never held a job for longer than a year or so. I've certainly asked questions myself of job applicants with 2-page resumes showing 10 or 15 jobs. (One thing that is especially telling is if you see a pattern on a resume of a few years of 1 job per year, lasting about 6 months - because this is the pattern that will allow a person to collect the most unemployment insurance possible per year. I've seen this mostly with itinerant CAD technicians, not so much with architects.)
If I see that someone had a lot of jobs but then settled down for several years then I don't worry too much. If I ask them about frequent job changes and they explain something like "we moved three times due to spouse's teaching jobs but now she has tenure" then I don't worry too much. If someone has one recent 5-month job and says "the firm was not a good fit but now I'm much more clear about my interests/skills and I'm approaching this search more carefully" then that sits well with me.
On the other hand, if they have a series of short jobs and they say things that seem to show disgruntlement/place blame with three firms in a row then that really raises red flags.
It does cost a firm money each time someone leaves and someone new needs to be hired and trained. Human resources types estimate the average expense to a company of every new hire to be over $40,000 (due to time to search and hire and train, lost time due to learning curve, etc.) I think this may be a little high for the typical architecture intern, but the same principle holds true...
So: if you're unhappy or stagnating in a job then take your time, look for something better, and leave. Dont' worry about sticking around until some magical date that will make it ok (though it's a bad idea and may anger people if you leave days after receiving a bonus, becoming vested in your firm's profit sharing program, or anything like that.) It doesn't really matter that much unless you make a habit of quitting quickly.
Good points- there's a big difference between serial job-hopping, and have jobs that vary in length depending on the situation. It's acceptable to stay at A job for a year, or even two or three, but at some point people will be hesitant to hire you if your track record suggests that you'll only last a year.
I read tons of resumes every year ... through that exercise, I decide who I want to interview ... one key lesson from this: too many short-term positions almost always indicates that the candidate has "issues" that I will want to investigate.
Everybody has a reason why they leave a job ... some are legitimate ... some are not ... some are verifiable independently ... some are not ... from the candidate's perspective, it's better if this issue is not a key ingredient of the interview
I tend to view job hoppers as people who aren't really interested in a career ... they tend to view every position they have held in a very self-centered way ... e.g. "this is what the job did (or did not do) for me" vs. "this is what I accomplished during my time at this firm"
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I think it's time to dust off the portfolio + res.
I'm definitely a job hopper who is not interested in a long term career in a firm. I'm just using my experience at different firms to finish IDP and get my license before striking out on my own. I'm also using the job hopping as a way to figure out what I like and dislike in terms of office types and project types. None of this makes me what my employers would consider a bad employee.
makes a good point ... "short term" employees are not necessarily "bad" employees and I didn't mean to suggest above that individuals with numerous short-term positions are either bad people or poor professionals ... but, they do tend to have a different agenda from the career-minded.
As an employer, there are times when I need to staff up, knowing the growth may not be long-lived. At such times, I'm more inclined to pursue those candidates whose credentials suggest they don't like to stay anywhere for a long period of time.
However, when I'm hiring for an important strategic position -- like a Project Manager or a Design Architect -- I'm hoping to find someone who wants to stay with us for a long time and build a career here. In those cases, given the investment we intend to make in the successful candidate, it's doubtful I'll even consider interviewing an individual who has held 5 jobs in 4 years.
I think job-hopping is a symptom of the sickness that our profession is mired in. Being laid off, overworked, undercompensated, and generally treated like garbage over and over again has it's consequences.
Fuck them. Job-hopping is a defense mechanism.
... you may be right in what you surmise ... but, a defense mechanism of this type is, in my humble view, self-destructive over time. you're not hurting the firm nearly as much as you may be hurting yourself.
six one-year jobs is not the same as one six-year job, or even two three-year jobs -- I've seen many professionals with resumes offering experience scenarios of either type -- in general (but not always) those with more stable employment records have developed faster and become more well versed in the essential aspects necessary to become a fine architect. mostly, the difference is related to "seasoning" and depth of experience.
but, there always are exceptions.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.