As we’re in the process of hiring for a crucial role, I’ve noticed a pattern - many candidates have a history of frequently changing jobs. This leads to a critical question: Should I consider these 'job-hoppers' or favour those who have stayed with one organisation for years?

In my experience as a People Leader, sensible job-hopping can be okay, but frequent job changes within a very short period can be a red flag. With the exception of interims who come in, in short stints to work on specific projects, it typically takes about six months to fully integrate into a role and the company culture. Constantly moving before that can signal a lack of commitment or an inability to see things through.

However, staying in a job for decades has its own pros and cons. Some long-term employees continue to evolve, bringing ongoing value to the organisation. Others, unfortunately, may become disengaged over time, contributing less as they grow too comfortable.

We all recognise that the era of lifelong jobs is behind us.

Modern careers are more about impact, delivery and effectiveness than tenure. Interestingly, 40% of people under 35 believe job-hopping is beneficial for their career growth.

It also often comes down to personality profiles - those with an entrepreneurial or creative mindset may get restless more quickly especially if their role is somewhat limiting, while those who value stability may prefer longer tenures.

Ultimately, it depends on the role and what you need. If I’m looking for someone to deliver strategic and timely changes, I won’t necessarily worry about their history of job changes. Instead, I’ll focus on maximising their performance and supporting them in delivering results during their time with us, whether that’s for one year or three.

Sensible job changes can help build a broad skill set and open up future opportunities. Conversely, long-term employees may offer loyalty and a deep understanding of the business.

The key is to find the right balance for the role at hand.