Latest / Job Hopping with Fexingo: Tenure, Loyalty, and the Modern Career Resume / What Leaving After Nine Years Taught Me About Career Timing
Transcript
- Lucas: There's this moment in a long-tenure career that nobody warns you about. You're nine years in, you've got the institutional memory, the internal network, you can close a deal with your eyes closed. And then a recruiter calls with a number that makes you blink — and you realise you don't actually know what you're worth on the open market. Luna: That's the exact scenario a friend of mine just went through. Marketing director at a mid-size B2B SaaS company, nine years, two promotions, solid performance reviews. And she told me the scariest part wasn't the new offer itself — it was that she couldn't even tell if it was good or bad. Lucas: Right, because her frame of reference was internal. She knew the company's comp bands, the annual 3-to-5 percent raises, the equity refresher every three years. But she'd lost touch with the external market entirely. That's the real risk of a long stay — not that you're bored, but that your calibration drifts. Luna: Exactly. She accepted the new role, by the way. Forty-five percent base bump, plus a title jump to VP. But the decision took her six months. Six months of anxiety. Lucas: And that's what I want to unpack today. The nine-year inflection point. Why it's one of the most dangerous and most promising moments in a career, and how to actually assess whether you're building value by staying — or just accumulating inertia. Luna: Let's start with the danger side. What specifically changes around year nine? Lucas: A few things. First, the internal equity vesting schedule typically flattens. Most companies grant equity that fully vests in four years. After that, you're on annual refresh grants, which are usually smaller. So your total compensation growth slows dramatically after year four or five unless you get a big promotion. Luna: And by year nine, if you haven't had a major promo in the last few years, you're basically getting cost of living adjustments and maybe a 2 percent merit bump. Lucas: Exactly. Meanwhile, the external market has been moving. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median wage growth for job switchers outpaced stayers by about 4 to 5 percentage points annually over the last five years. That compounds. Over nine years, that gap can be enormous. Luna: So you could be leaving tens of thousands — maybe hundreds of thousands — on the table by not testing the market. Lucas: Yes. But it's not just about comp. There's also the skill atrophy risk. In a stable role, you get really good at one version of the job. But the industry evolves. The tools change. The competitive landscape shifts. And if you're not forced to adapt by a new environment, you can fall behind without noticing. Luna: My friend said that was the thing that shook her most. During her exit interviews, the new company asked about her experience with a specific attribution platform. She'd used an older version at her old job, but the industry had moved on. She had to scramble to learn it in her notice period. Lucas: That's a concrete example. And it's not just tools — it's also the way work gets done. Remote collaboration norms, AI integration, cross-functional velocity. If you've been in the same culture for nine years, you might not realise how much the default operating rhythm has changed elsewhere. Luna: So what's the argument for staying? Because clearly there are benefits to long tenure — depth of relationships, institutional trust, the ability to actually execute big projects. Lucas: Absolutely. The argument for staying is that you can build compound career capital that's hard to replicate. You know the product's history. You know which stakeholders actually matter. You can skip the six-month ramp-up period that every new hire faces. That's real value. Luna: And there's a reputational angle too. In some industries, a nine-year stint signals reliability, deep expertise, and the ability to navigate internal politics constructively. Lucas: Right. But here's the thing — that capital depreciates if you don't actively convert it into external visibility. If nobody outside your company knows what you've accomplished, you're not building portable equity. You're building company-specific equity that evaporates the moment you leave. Luna: So the move is to stay but stay visible. Speak at conferences, publish thought leadership, build a network outside the org chart. Lucas: Exactly. The people who successfully stay for a decade and then leap successfully are the ones who maintained an external presence. They weren't hiding inside the castle. They were inviting people to see the work. Luna: Let's talk about the negotiation dynamics specifically. My friend said that when she finally got an offer, she had no idea how to counter because she'd never done it before. Her previous promotions were all internal — the company just set the number. Lucas: That's a huge blind spot. Negotiation is a skill, and like any skill, it atrophies without practice. If you haven't negotiated a job offer in nine years, you're going in cold. You don't know your leverage points, you don't know market ranges, you don't know how to frame a counter. Luna: What's the antidote? Should people just interview every year even if they're happy? Lucas: I think that's actually underrated advice. Not to leave — just to interview. Do it once a year as a calibration exercise. See what roles are out there, what skills are in demand, what comp ranges look like. You don't have to take the offer. But you keep your negotiation muscle flexed and your market data fresh. Luna: It also reduces the emotional stakes. If you interview regularly, leaving doesn't feel like this massive, scary life decision. It's just another data point. Lucas: Exactly. And if you do decide to stay after that calibration, you can take that data to your manager and have a real conversation about comp adjustment or scope expansion. That's much more credible than saying 'I think I deserve more' without any external reference. Luna: So for someone who's at year seven or eight right now, what's the concrete checklist? How do you assess whether staying is still serving you? Lucas: I'd suggest three things. First, look at your comp trajectory. Plot your total compensation over the last five years. If the slope is flattening, that's a signal. Second, look at your learning curve. Are you still learning at a pace that excites you, or are you mostly executing what you already know? Third, look at your external network. Could you get a warm introduction to five hiring managers in your field within a week? Luna: That third one is brutal. For my friend, the answer was no. She'd let her network shrink to basically her current coworkers. Lucas: And that's the hidden cost of long tenure. It's not just the money or the skills — it's the network depreciation. Your weak ties decay over time if you don't actively maintain them. And weak ties are disproportionately where job opportunities come from. Luna: Mark Granovetter's research from the seventies still holds. The strength of weak ties. Lucas: Classic. So the framework is really about intentionality. Long tenure isn't bad. But accidental long tenure — staying because it's comfortable and you haven't looked — is risky. The people who thrive in long stays are the ones who make a deliberate choice each year to renew that commitment, with clear eyes about the trade-offs. Luna: I want to go back to my friend's story for a second. She told me the hardest part wasn't the money or the title — it was the identity shift. She'd been 'the person from company X' for so long that leaving felt like losing a part of herself. Lucas: That's real. And it's something the data doesn't capture. After nine years, you're not just an employee — you're embedded in the social fabric. You have lunch routines, inside jokes, a sense of belonging. Leaving means rebuilding all of that from scratch. That's a genuine psychological cost. Luna: So how do you weigh that against the financial and career growth benefits? Lucas: I think you have to ask yourself: is the belonging supporting your growth or substituting for it? If the social ties are the main reason you're staying, and the work itself has stopped challenging you, that's a red flag. You don't want to be in a situation where you're trading long-term career velocity for short-term comfort. Luna: Speaking of career velocity — I think that's a concept that deserves more attention. The speed at which you're acquiring new skills, responsibilities, and influence. If that velocity drops below a certain threshold for too long, it's hard to regain momentum. Lucas: Exactly. And velocity isn't just about promotions. It's about the scope of projects, the diversity of stakeholders, the complexity of problems. You can have a flat title but increasing velocity if your role keeps expanding. But if you're doing the same thing year over year, your velocity is zero, even if your performance is good. Luna: That's a great framework for the listener at home. Plot your own career velocity. If it's flat for two years, that's a yellow flag. If it's flat for four, that's a red one. Lucas: And if you're at that nine-year mark, you might have had high velocity for the first four or five years, then a plateau. The question is whether that plateau is a resting point before the next climb, or the top of a hill you've been sitting on. Luna: That's the kind of honest assessment that's hard to do alone. Which is why I love that we can have these conversations here, without any agenda, just trying to help people think clearly. Lucas: Yeah, and that's actually something I want to mention. We deliberately don't run ads on this show. No sponsors, no products to plug. Partly because we think career decisions are too personal to sell something alongside. And partly because we just prefer it this way. Luna: It is nice. The conversation can go where it needs to go without a mid-roll break about mattresses or meal kits. Lucas: Exactly. So if you find value in that clarity, and you want to help keep it ad-free, there's a way to support the show. It's at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. That's all — no pressure, no perks, just a way to say this matters to you. Luna: And it genuinely helps. We put the same care into every episode regardless, but knowing listeners are behind it keeps us going. Lucas: Alright, back to career velocity. Let's give listeners a concrete action step. If you're at year seven or eight, here's what I'd do this quarter. Luna: I'm ready. Lucas: First, update your resume and LinkedIn with specific, quantified achievements from the last three years. Not just responsibilities — results. Second, reach out to three people outside your company who work in similar roles and ask for a fifteen-minute informational chat. Third, apply to one role that's a stretch — a level above where you are now — just to see what happens. Luna: And if you do those three things, at minimum you'll have better data for your decision. Even if you stay, you'll stay with more confidence. Lucas: Right. The worst outcome isn't leaving or staying. It's staying because you never gave yourself permission to look. So give yourself that permission. Luna: And if you do look and find something great, you'll know you made the choice with open eyes. Like my friend did. Lucas: She made VP. First external move of her career. And she told me the biggest surprise wasn't the money — it was how much she learned in the first three months. She'd forgotten what it felt like to be the new person, asking questions, building fresh relationships. There's a kind of energy in that. Luna: That's the counterpoint to comfort. Growth is often uncomfortable. But discomfort doesn't mean danger — sometimes it means you're moving again. Lucas: Exactly. So whether you stay or go, make sure you're moving. Even if it's just inside your current role, keep the velocity up. That's the real career asset.