Acronym

As Betsy points out "Curiosity of thought" is very important. I totally agree with her that it is difficult (and rare) for staff to maintain that curiosity if they have been in a position more than 10 years. I had lunch with a friend in the recruitment business this week who told me that holding a job more than 10 years is a professional mistake.
I also think that it is probably not likely that any job remains the same for 10 years. Even if you have the same title, you probably aren't doing your job well if your duties and approach haven't changed. That is the bigger killer of curiosity.

As someone who has held the same position in a medical society for 10 years, I have a different perspective on tenure of service. Working for an association is not the same as working in corporate America. Relationships are important in any organization but I think even more so in associations. It takes time to build trust with members and external partners, something that is much more difficult to accomplish in the short-term if you don't plan to stay in a position more than a couple of years.

While I continue to be responsible for the same core projects that I took on when I first arrived, there are new projects and new challenges every day. I can honestly say that in 10 years I've not been bored one day. I've come to value the relationships I have with members more as time has gone on...some members have even become close personal friends. To make a general statement that "holding a job more than 10 years is a professional mistake" shows a lack of understanding about the nature of associations and the effort it takes to develop the skills required to serve members in the most effective ways.

For the record, in the video I do say "15 or 20" years. I don't mean to suggest that it's not possible to hold the same job even for an entire career and stay curious and effective. I just think it may be rare. And I do believe that membership service skills are transferrable, though I certainly acknowledge every organization is unique.

But I work in an organization where as of January 20, the third of four senior staff members who have been at the org. for 25+ years will depart, taking with him contacts and knowledge it would be hard to capture, and which he does not seem to know how to transfer to other staff.

With the turnover comes new opportunities, absolutely, but I begin to see the flip side of the "people are our best asset" dictum: if long-tenure employees leave without sufficient notice for whatever reason, or without good knowledge tranfer, the organization loses a great deal.

That's a cultural imperative, I guess, to ensure people document their jobs. But that of course is easier said than done.

Betsy, You raised a great (and contentious) issue. I have been in settings where tenure is exalted: one where HR tracked average tenure and sought to steadily increase it (and with periodic recognition for one gentleman who had been on staff for 50 years!); another where our CEO was the first paid staffer 35 years before and grew to 170 employees. In both settings were were asked to participate in orientations and mentoring so we could "learn the CRS way" or the "ASHP culture" which was helpful on one hand, very condescending on the other. When layoffs came in one setting and I was expected to prioritize staff purely on tenure, I rebelled at the outmoded notion that the value of any employee steadily increases with years on the job. Effective performance is really a peronal choice, not a given. I saw some employees whose value was great at one time then steadily declined while they continued to collect a paycheck for years.

I think it's best for organizations to have an open recognition of the pros and cons of long tenure; for employees to be considerate of how they leave an organization; and to the extent possible, to have and enforce policies and practices that reward good behavior and help steer us away from having stereotypical 'dead wood' long-time employees or self-centered 'perpetual job hoppers.'

I never committed the 'professional mistake' of staying in any one position more than three years: at first because I was being promoted, twice consciously leaving to work in a marketing agency and a dot-com. Inadvertently I was preparing to be a consultant--the perfect job for someone with ADD. But it was always a point of pride that I left the functions I served far better than I found them even if I was only there two or three years.

But that's generalizing from a sample of one. I have a hard time imagining being anywhere 10 years, even being self-employed that long (for now) but I also know many dedicated, effective staff who have held a position for the long-haul. All of this is interesting (and timely) as I have to speak in a couple weeks on 'career choices' at a nonprofit conference. I fear in a room full of long-tenured charity marketing execs I will be espousing a minority viewpoint but then again, that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger....

I think we can all agree that generalizations about tenure may not apply in all cases, so perhaps we could reframe the discussion. It seems to me that one important concept we might consider is ensuring that one develops the appropriate skills and creativity to be effectively do our jobs while sharing our knowledge in such a way that it lives on for the organization after we're gone regardless of our tenure...be that 3 years or 30 years.

The other side of the coin is training managers and supervisors to spot those staff that are not contributing as effectively as they need to and either retrain the staff in question or find areas where they can shine even if it is in another organization...again regardless of tenure.

TD

You know me, Kevin. Never found a hornet's nest I couldn't whack. Teresa, I absolutely agree - this has a huge amount to do with managers recognizing how to develop staff and/or nudge them out of the nest, so to speak. And really it has a lot to do with the fact that people put varying degrees of value on the professional side of their lives - for lots of reasons, many of which are perfectly valid.

Then, too, I've had a thought recently - heretical, surely: mediocre people have to work somewhere, too. Would managers make better use of their time to identify the positions where that doesn't matter (would anyone admit that there is a job where excellence really isn't necessary?), and focus on finding and cultivating standout employees for the roles where it really DOES matter?

I'm thinking of the membership coordinator who chugs away in that role for a decade with no desire to advance - work is just work to him or her, and while the job is done acceptably, there's no innovation or growth happening there. Is that a failure of leadership? Or, if the manager of this employee has successfully mentored other employees up and out, is that just a wise allocation of resources?

To get back to your point about authenticity versus message control--I see it as the difference between message and word-smithing. You're right - focusing on how we say it loses the richer meaning of the message.

Re: the hornets nest - whether or not the curiosity of thought argument is valid across the board, turnover is the new paradigm. Over the past decade, the best way for me and my peers to advance has been to move on. We've created an expectation for ourselves--if we're not moving on, we're standing still. Is that a life stage thing, or is it a mind shift? It's hard to say. From a management perspective, it's crazy not to craft every position with turnover in mind. More and more, continuity will come from careful planning and management, not long-tenured staff.