Latest / Job Hopping with Fexingo: Tenure, Loyalty, and the Modern Career Resume / Why a Two-Year Tenure Is the New Normal
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's this number that's been sitting with me all week: the median job tenure in the US is now just under four years. But for workers in their twenties? It's closer to two and a half. And that gap has been widening for decades. Luna: Yeah, and if you're listening to this show, you're probably part of that statistic, or you're about to be. So what does that actually mean for your career, beyond the obvious? Lucas: Well, before we dive into that — and this is totally on-topic for a show about moving between jobs — I want to be real for a second. We get a handful of listeners who chip in a few bucks a month through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. That's literally what keeps this show ad-free and lets us keep making episodes on niche career questions that a big media company wouldn't touch. Luna: Yeah, and if that's you, thank you. It genuinely makes a difference. And if you're curious, it's a five-second thing. But we know not everyone can, and that's fine. Lucas: Right. Okay, back to tenure. The thing is, a two-year stint used to raise eyebrows. It was a signal that you couldn't commit. But the evidence is pointing the other way now. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has tracked this for decades, and the average tenure has been dropping since the 1980s. Luna: Right, and I've seen the data. In the early eighties, the average worker stayed at a job for over five years. By 2020, it was down to about four. But the real story is generational. Baby boomers stay much longer than Gen Z. Lucas: Exactly. And the interesting part is that economists used to frame this as a problem — job hopping as a failure of loyalty. But there's a growing body of research that suggests shorter tenures are actually a rational response to a labor market that rewards agility over longevity. Luna: So we're not just being flaky as a culture? There's an actual economic logic to it? Lucas: I think so. Think about how work has changed. Thirty years ago, you'd join a company, climb a defined ladder, and get regular raises that kept up with inflation. That's just not the reality anymore. Companies flatten their hierarchies, they outsource, they reorg every eighteen months. The traditional career path has been hollowed out. Luna: And so staying put for a decade doesn't guarantee you anything. You might get stuck with a title that doesn't reflect what you do, or a salary that's fallen behind the market. Lucas: Right. I was reading a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta that found people who switch jobs tend to see bigger pay bumps than those who stay. And that gap has widened since the pandemic. Job stayers saw real wage growth of maybe three percent last year, while job switchers saw closer to six. Luna: That's a huge difference when you think about compounding over a career. If you switch every couple years, you could be earning substantially more than a peer who stays put. Lucas: Exactly. But the tricky part is that not all job hopping is created equal. A two-year tenure that involves clear growth — new skills, expanded responsibility, a promotion — that's a different story from bouncing around without a narrative. Luna: And that's the nuance that gets lost in the headlines. Recruiters aren't just counting months. They're looking for a pattern. Are you moving forward, or are you just moving? Lucas: Let's talk about what that pattern looks like on a resume. If you've got three jobs in six years, each with increasing responsibility and a clear reason for leaving, that can actually be a plus. It shows you're in demand, you're selective, and you're not afraid to make a change when it's smart. Luna: But what about the flip side? What if you've had two jobs that each lasted less than a year? That's a different signal, isn't it? Lucas: It is. And that's where you need a story that's honest. A layoff or a startup that fell apart — those are understandable. But if you're leaving because you're bored after eight months every time, at some point you're the common denominator. Luna: Right. So it's not just about the number. It's about the why. And that's where the idea of a 'minimum effective tenure' comes in. Have you heard that term? Lucas: I've seen it floating around. The idea is that you need at least a certain amount of time to actually deliver value and build relationships that will pay off later. Some people say eighteen months, some say two years. What's your take? Luna: I think it depends on the role and the industry. But there's a solid argument that anything less than a year doesn't give you time to complete a full cycle — you haven't seen the results of your work, you haven't built the trust that leads to good references. Two years feels like the sweet spot where you've made an impact and you're ready for the next challenge. Lucas: And that's why I think the 'two-year rule' is becoming this unofficial standard, even if it's not written down anywhere. It's short enough to signal ambition, but long enough to signal follow-through. Luna: So, for someone listening who's at the two-year mark right now, wondering if it's too soon to start looking — what would you say? Lucas: I'd say start the conversation. The market in August 2026 is still tight for skilled workers, and you have more leverage than you think. But I'd also say this: don't just leave for a small bump. Make sure the next move is a step forward in skills, title, or industry, not just a lateral hop. Luna: And that's the part that can get tricky. Because it's easy to rationalize a move that's really just about getting away from a bad boss or a boring project. But if you do that twice in a row, you start to look reactive, not strategic. Lucas: Exactly. And that's where having a clear career narrative becomes your safety net. You want to be able to tell a story about your tenure that's not just 'I left because X.' It's 'I joined because I wanted to learn A, I did B, and now I'm ready for C.' Luna: Yeah, and that's a lot easier to do if you've been intentional from day one. Like, you don't start thinking about your exit strategy on day one — but you should think about what you want to get out of this role in the next two years. Lucas: Right. Set a learning goal and a delivery goal. If you hit both by the two-year mark and the company isn't offering a clear path forward, that's your signal to start looking. And you leave with a story that any recruiter would respect. Luna: That's a great framework. And I think it's worth noting that this isn't just for people early in their careers. Even at senior levels, the logic holds. The C-suite is more willing to hire outsiders than ever before, and a two-year stint as a VP or director can be a springboard to a bigger role elsewhere. Lucas: Absolutely. And the data backs that up. Executive search firms report that the average tenure for a C-suite role is now around four years, but it's been trending down. Boards are less patient, and executives are more willing to jump for the right opportunity. Luna: So the stigma is really fading at every level. But recruiting technology still has that quirk — the algorithms that screen resumes often flag anything under a year as a red flag. Have you seen that in practice? Lucas: Yeah, and that's a real thing. A lot of applicant tracking systems are set to filter out candidates with gaps or short tenures. But that's a blunt instrument. A smart recruiter will manually review a resume if it's otherwise strong. And there are ways to phrase your experience that get you past the bots. Luna: Like using a functional resume? Or focusing on achievements rather than dates? Lucas: Both can help. You can lead with 'Results-driven marketing manager with a track record of launching products in under a year.' That frames the short tenure as a strength. But I'd avoid trying to hide dates — that can backfire if you get caught. Luna: Fair. Honesty is always the best policy. But it's interesting how the rules of the game are changing. Ten years ago, a recruiter might have tossed your resume if you had four jobs in six years. Now, that's almost a badge of honor in some industries. Lucas: I think it's because the nature of value creation has changed. You can make a real impact at a company in eighteen months. You can launch a product, fix a broken process, or land a major client. In a fast-moving economy, that's worth more than a decade of steady but unremarkable service. Luna: And companies are adapting to that, too. More and more, they're structuring work around projects and short-term engagements, even for full-time roles. They know talent is fluid, so they try to make the most of the time they have you. Lucas: Which brings us full circle. The 'two-year tenure' isn't a failure of loyalty — it's a reflection of how work actually gets done in 2026. The companies that will thrive are the ones that embrace that reality. Luna: So if you're listening and you're at that two-year mark, don't panic. You're not a flight risk. You're following a pattern that's become the new normal. The question is: what's your next chapter? Lucas: And that's the question we should all be asking, whether we're two months in or two decades. What are we here to learn, and where does that take us next? Thanks for listening, everyone.