At start of career changing jobs every 1-2 years for more exposure is considered good of bad practice as per you?

for me there is no fixed formula, or clear right period to spend in a company, spend the time needed to learn and have a plus, when you feel that you are  regressing, or not in a good situation by any means, then there is no other option  than leaving and finding another opportunity.

However, being in many companies is a plus because you will see different things, processes instead of sticking to only one

In most cases, If a person has no experience at all - he/she must get as much exposure to different industries and/or roles to ascertain his/her final choice of role/industry, etc. It reflects eagerness to learn.

 

I would say that after the first2 years, one must try to spend a longer tenure in their Company to grow as a professional and build a Career for themselves. It reflects stability and direction.

 

Either ways, it's a choice one makes based on various circumstances known to them.

Three years is enough for each company to growth your salary And get new experience. So when you reach35y you should be in good position with good salary

I would say yes, as this will increase your exposure and you can explore yourself

Its not good at start of the carrier to change the job in1-2 years because it shows you are in hurry to get success and achive your target but in other hand it will show to your employer that you are not long player in any organisation.

If you are spending time in one organitaion3-4 years you will lear alot and it will give you a good effects on your next employer.

 

a new employee needs time to learn, not only the job tasks but about the " working environment ".

 

he needs time to give all what he got to the job, and that needs longer that1-2 year.

 

in my personal opinion,5 years is good time to move to another job.

 

 

 

First impression always has a huge impact in everything. When someone sees your career change every1-2 years, the first thing that will come to mind is that there is no loyalty and that you are someone they cannot expect to stay for long. The initial reaction would be to put you as a secondary option over someone who has a solid career background with a minimun of2-3 years period in each job.

if they think like we have to understand the different job nature or now they are satisfied with the current job environment. in that sense it is ok but there is an adverse result because the others think like they are not suitable for any post thats why they are unfit.so in my opion isto it is a bad habit as well as good habit.

The issue is not to how much you get exposed to, but how much you retain out of the exposure; more often than not you would need to stabilize in a position to absorb what you get exposed to for more than one year, exposure in itself is necessary but not the only prerequisite, you need a good internal mentor as well; exposure does not come on its own it is a process managed by the people you report to as pert of the HR development, if this is lacking you can get exposed to a lot of things but in a purely "spectator" role and this does not bring any real development.

It is not uncommon for people in the right environment to have acquired a solid professional base in the first8-10 years of their career with the same company; after that you can change a bit more frequently but not too frequently, job jumpers do not contribute much to a company.