Rethinking value in hiring — What really matters?
Why tenure isn't the full story — some thought provoking reflections
It still surprises me how much weight we give to tenure, the number of years someone spends at a company as a sign of quality.
Hiring is hard. Resumes and interviews aren’t perfect. But why do we assume that “stability” equals excellence? Someone with less than two years in past roles often gets labeled "unstable," while those with five or more years are seen as "safe bets." But are we really measuring impact, or just endurance?
What about the person who drives real change in three months versus someone who coasts for five years? Tenure doesn’t measure curiosity, adaptability, or results. At best, it’s a weak sign of reliability; at worst, it rewards complacency.
Data from LinkedIn and Gallup shows that motivation and impact don’t always match up with tenure. Some of the most engaged employees move more often—not because they’re disloyal, but because they want meaningful work.
The Wrong Interview Questions
Most hiring managers focus on:
"Why did you leave your last job?"
"Can you explain this short stay?"
But a job is, at its core, a simple exchange. I provide value; you pay me for it. If the fit is great, the relationship grows. If not, it ends.
Yet employees carry all the pressure to explain job changes. Companies face no scrutiny for firing people during probation, but candidates get penalized for "short stints." Why? Because hiring is expensive—so businesses default to avoiding risk instead of measuring real impact.
Loyalty Isn’t About Suffering
Let’s be clear: Loyalty should not mean misery.
Too many people stay in jobs they hate, doing the bare minimum to get by. That’s not commitment—that’s checked-out survival mode. And it’s bad for everyone:
Innovation dies because no one cares enough to push boundaries.
Top performers quit when they see mediocrity rewarded.
Growth stalls because "staying a long time" gets mistaken for success.
I once heard a senior leader say:
"Not everyone has to be a superstar. Some people will slack, and that’s fine."
I strongly disagree. If you know someone is disengaged and you allow it, you hurt your team, your culture, and your business.
A Better Way to Hire
Tenure isn’t useless—but it shouldn’t be the only factor. Instead of asking "why they left," try:
"What’s the biggest impact you made in your last role, and how fast did you make it happen?"
"What did you learn that made you ready for something new?"
"How do you solve problems you’ve never seen before?"
Look for actions, not just years:
Curiosity – Do they ask tough questions? Challenge the usual way of doing things?
Ownership – Do they lead change, or wait for instructions?
Impact – Can they point to real results, even in short roles?
The 30-Day Challenge
Years ago, I worked with someone who transformed our team in just 30 days. By week two, they’d spotted inefficiencies. By week three, they proposed fixes. By the end of the month, we had a better way of working.
They weren’t just "a good hire"—they were a spark. And they proved that impact isn’t about time served; it’s about what you do with the time you have.
The Takeaway
Hiring for tenure is easy. Hiring for impact takes effort and it’s the only way to build teams that innovate, adapt, and win.