Latest / The Diversity Career Podcast with Fexingo: Inclusion, Equity, and Underrepresented Professionals / How The Great Resignation Changed Loyalty
Transcript
- Lucas: If we've helped you think through a career move or decision this week, I want to quickly mention that listener support is what keeps these shows ad-free. You can find the link at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it really does make a difference in keeping the content independent. Thanks for checking that out if you're able. Lucas: Let's get right into the numbers, because there is a persistent myth that staying loyal to one employer is the safest path to financial security. In reality, the data from the last five years suggests that for most professionals in tech, finance, and marketing, the biggest jumps in compensation are happening when people leave. It used to be that changing jobs was seen as a red flag on a resume, something that suggested instability or poor performance. Luna: Right, and now it's almost expected. If you stay at the same company for more than three years, people assume you're either happy or stuck. Lucas: Exactly. And the 'stuck' part is where the real cost lies. Look at the current landscape here in September 2026. Companies that rely on internal meritocracy to drive raises are losing ground to competitors who poach talent with signing bonuses and base salary adjustments that exceed internal promotion bands. We saw this trend accelerate after the pandemic, but it hasn't reversed. It has become the new baseline. Luna: So the penalty for leaving has flipped. Now the penalty is staying put. Lucas: Precisely. Let's look at a specific case to make this concrete. Consider a mid-level product manager in their early thirties. If they joined a large consumer goods firm five years ago, their annual raise might have been capped at three percent due to budget constraints. But if they moved to a competitor halfway through that period, they likely secured a fifteen percent increase just by resetting their market value. That compounding effect over a decade creates a massive divergence in net worth between the leaver and the stayer. Luna: That seems like a brutal way to frame it, but the math is hard to argue with. Are companies even trying to counter this anymore? Lucas: They are, but mostly through internal mobility rather than retention bonuses. The strategy has shifted from locking people in to making it easier to move around inside the organization. This is often called the 'internal gig economy.' Instead of hiring externally for every senior role, companies encourage employees to take short-term projects across different departments. Luna: I've seen some firms do this. It sounds good on paper, but does it actually stop people from leaving? Lucas: It slows the bleeding, yes. By giving employees variety without the friction of a full resignation and rehiring process, companies keep them engaged. However, it doesn't necessarily solve the compensation gap. Internal moves often come with modest bumps, whereas external offers come with market corrections. So while internal mobility improves job satisfaction, it rarely matches the financial upside of switching employers. Luna: That makes sense. Satisfaction is important, but so is paying off a mortgage. Where do you see the sweet spot for someone wanting both? Lucas: The sweet spot is strategic timing. You don't need to jump every eighteen months, but you should aim for a major role change or a significant scope expansion roughly every two to four years. The key is ensuring that each move increases your responsibilities, not just your title. A lateral move with a twenty percent pay hike is better than a promotion with a five percent raise if the new role doesn't add skills. Luna: So it's about cumulative skill acquisition, not just climbing a ladder. Lucas: Exactly. Think of your career as a portfolio of assets. Each role adds a specific set of competencies that increase your market value. If you stay in one place too long, those assets depreciate because the technology or methodology evolves elsewhere. You end up with deep expertise in a niche that may no longer be relevant to the broader market. Luna: That's a really useful metaphor. Depreciating assets. It highlights the risk of complacency. Lucas: Complacency is the enemy of relevance. And let's be clear, this isn't advice to be a serial job-hopper who burns bridges. It's advice to be intentional. When you leave, you should leave on good terms, document your wins, and build a network. Those references become your safety net when you eventually decide to settle down in a role that offers stability. Luna: But how do you convince a hiring manager that you won't leave them in six months? That's usually the first question they ask. Lucas: You frame your history as a pattern of growth, not a pattern of escape. You explain that your previous moves were driven by specific learning objectives that you've now achieved. For example, 'I spent three years mastering agile methodologies, and now I'm looking for a role where I can apply that at scale in a larger organization.' It shows direction, not drift. Luna: That feels much more confident than just saying you wanted more money. Lucas: Money is always part of it, but framing it as professional development makes you a safer investment for the employer. They are buying your future potential, not just your past experience. If they see a trajectory, they are more willing to overlook the gaps or the frequency of your moves. Luna: Do you think this dynamic affects younger workers differently than older ones? Lucas: Significantly. Early in your career, jumping around is low-risk and high-reward. You have less equity to vest, fewer family obligations tied to a location, and your skills are still forming. By the time you reach senior levels, the stakes change. You might have stock options that vest over four years, or a team that depends on your continuity. The calculation becomes more complex. Luna: So loyalty matters more later on, not because of sentiment, but because of leverage. Lucas: Yes, leverage. At senior levels, your influence is harder to replace. Leaving can disrupt entire divisions. So companies will fight harder to keep you, but they will also scrutinize your next move more closely. The conversation shifts from 'what can you do for us?' to 'how will you lead our strategy?' That requires a different kind of preparation. Luna: It sounds like the burden of career management has completely shifted to the individual. There's no safety net anymore. Lucas: That is the core truth of the modern workplace. The implicit contract of lifelong employment is gone. In its place is a transactional relationship based on mutual benefit. You provide value, they provide compensation and growth opportunities. When that balance tips, you move. It's not personal, and it's not disloyal. It's just business. Luna: I wonder if that coldness is why people feel so burned out. If everything is transactional, where is the connection? Lucas: Connection comes from shared purpose and good leadership, not from tenure. You can have deep bonds with colleagues in a two-year stint if the work is meaningful. Conversely, you can hate everyone you work with for ten years if the culture is toxic. Don't confuse duration with depth. Luna: That's a good reminder. Depth matters more than duration. Lucas: And finally, let's talk about the industry shift. Some sectors, like traditional manufacturing or government contracting, still reward tenure heavily. If you work in those fields, the rules I've described might not apply as strictly. But in knowledge economies—software, consulting, media, finance—the velocity of change demands velocity in career movement. Luna: So context is everything. You can't apply the same playbook everywhere. Lucas: Correct. Assess your industry's rhythm before you plan your next step. If you're in a fast-moving field, stagnation is visible. If you're in a slow-moving one, consistency is valued. Know which game you're playing. Luna: One last question on this: how do you handle the anxiety of potentially being 'unemployable' if you spend too long in one place? Lucas: You combat it by staying connected to the market. Even if you stay at one company, attend conferences, update your LinkedIn profile quarterly, and have casual chats with recruiters. Keep your foot in the door so you know what your worth is, even if you don't intend to knock on anyone else's door yet. Luna: Just keeping the channel open. That takes the pressure off having to make a leap just to check in. Lucas: Exactly. Information is your best defense against fear. Once you know your value, you can choose stability from a position of strength, not weakness. Luna: That's a powerful way to finish the thought. Choosing strength over fear. Lucas: It really is. As we look toward the rest of 2026, I think we'll see even more companies formalizing these internal mobility paths, not just to retain staff, but to build a more versatile workforce capable of adapting to rapid market shifts. Luna: Interesting. So the flexibility workers seek is becoming a corporate strategy, not just an individual tactic. Lucas: That's the evolution. The structure is changing to match the expectations of the workforce. The question for listeners is whether they are building the skills to navigate that new structure effectively. Luna: A great question to carry into the week ahead. Thanks for breaking this down, Lucas. Lucas: My pleasure. Let's see how these dynamics play out in the quarters ahead.