mjhjmtu

Why is this OK and not a red flag?

So you seek someone who will do Software-engineering for you. The candidate you have at hand has a lot of experience in that area. He has achieved the highest rank possible where his main occupation still is software engineering - long ago, and he stayed with it.

So chances are:

• He really loves what he is doing.


• He is good at it and does not do all the expensive rookie mistakes.


• He does not want to get into a leadership-position and make expensive rookie mistakes there.


• He is really loyal and if treated right, will stick around your company equally long


• You won´t have to do expensive recruiting and training of a new developer in 3 years

Go to see for yourself. Try to find out especially if he is open and interested in new technologies, ideas and engineering-concepts and if he can communicate and share his knowledge with the rest of the team.

I will answer this from the perspective of personal experience.

I've been in the same position for 12 years now. Here's why:

When I started, my wife gave birth to twin boys. The economics of childcare dictated that she stay at home with them for several years. When she went back to work, I needed to remain in a stable as secure position for a couple of years until her career path stabilized.

Guess what. She hated that job, and started searching for another. This set back my timeline another couple of years. Then the world discovered something that I already knew. My wife is awesome. She was poached, and given a much better job with another company. Again, we decided that I should wait a bit before looking for new prospects.

Why am I so complacent in my current position?
I work for a small company with great people. There is no other position here for me. There's no one else to manage. I work 9 to 5, and maybe a weekend a year. They accommodate my involvement in Boy Scouts, giving me time off for camps.

My career has progressed. I'm now advising the company what we should do, rather than being told what to do. My salary has more than doubled over the time, and I'm receiving regular bonuses and dividends on top of that.

What has not changed is my title. And for the most part, that doesn't matter.

Am I not ambitious enough? It depends on how you define ambition. My family is certainly better off having me home evenings and weekends. My wife's career has taken off, partially due to my support. Our family has thrived because of the stability and security this company provides.

At this stage, I'm scanning what's available. And if the choices I've made raise a red flag during an interview, then so be it. Their loss.

• Consider that "the same position" doesn't necessarily mean the same team, tech stack, project or even the same office. I personally work with a different client every 6-12 months, and I've learned a lot of new technologies, gotten significant raises, moved to a different branch, all without my job title ever changing. That might not be the norm, but it happens. Ask the candidate about some war stories, they might surprise you.




• Some companies offer job security and new toys. At my last client (key player in a very lucrative segment) all but one or two of my colleagues had been at the company for 10+ years. Yes, there were a handful that disliked having to learn new tech, but they were a minority.




• They might have been very invested in the job or the company. Could be a project they championed, improvements to the workflow they made over time, or perhaps the company was a successful startup?




• They might have stayed due to a disability. That doesn't mean they're not good at their job, but many jobs and companies might not appeal to them. E.g. I work with a lot of autistic colleagues who are fantastic at what they do, but avoid job hopping because prejudice and unstable working conditions are a big risk to them.




• They might have had other responsibilities to friends, relatives, their family. Someone they had to care for, or someone they wanted to spend more time with. An extra hour of commuting per day can make quite the difference, or maybe they needed flexible hours.

Why would it be a red flag? "Senior Software Engineer" or "Software Engineer III" could be the highest position in his company that still was able to code, so because of that, he maybe didn't want to become a manager or whoever else.

Not every company creates fancy positions like "Senior Ninja Developer" or "Wizard JS Dev" just in order to give promotions.

The most important question, in my opinion, is: Can you afford to ignore applicants?

For development jobs, at least here in Germany, there are so few applicants, that I interview everyone who is not obviously unqualified. I cannot afford to skip over someone based on too little information.

For other jobs, when you have a hundred applications for one opening, it makes sense to filter more strongly, based on criteria you ideally have defined it advance.

Yes, what you describe is uncommon, but it's not necessarily bad. In fact, thirty years ago, profiles like this were the norm. At the very least, you have someone who is easily motivated and loyal.

Why is this OK and not a red flag?

It depends on the company's culture but for some, it is a red flag.

The company I work in, a large one, considers that a candidate like this is not someone to invest in and will call contractors for profiles like this, preferring recruiting people able to "climb the ladder".

For some other companies, it is a type of profile they seek in order to have experts / senior developers.

TLDR: Ask your management to clarify the profiles they want you to find and if they consider it as a red flag.

Will the candidate influence the team in a good way? Or will the candidate seem bored and show tiredness for doing the same thing endlessly?

You don't have enough informations to answer this. See the candidate, interview him. Only knowing he has been in the same job for years is not enough.

Keep in mind some companies, particularly smaller ones, don't issue formal titles. I was a 'Software Developer' at one company for a number of years, but despite that title, I was effectively 'Head of Engineering'. So lesson - titles don't always mean a lot. Just because the candidate was in the same 'position' for 15 years, it doesn't mean they were doing the same job all that time.

The accepted answer and the other higher rated answers are fine. One more though: The applicant stayed a long time at his current company. Chances are high, he won't leave you after a year to do further job hopping. So your investment in training a new employee are rather safe.

Several of these answers are very good, and the advice given - talk to the guy and find out more - is correct.

I'll add one other way to look at it: Ignore the title. Pretty much ignore (*) how many years he's been in the same position.

Instead: Look for growth in the person. In his skills. In his scope. In his responsibility. In his knowledge.

None of these necessarily correlate (negatively) with "time in grade" whether that means the same title or the same company. (Especially title.)

Most of the time people (in growing companies) do in fact want to hire people who grow - and who have room and interest and ability left to grow more.

But also some people are looking for a person who has great knowledge/skills/experience and can be a advisor to the company's management, and/or a mentor to their employees. Past personal growth is suitable; future personal growth not necessary.

And finally some people are looking for a person who can come to work week after week and do a job reliably, and if the person is happy in a stable position, that's fine.

Those last three paragraphs describe wants/needs of the employer, not the candidate. And they can be properly evaluated against evidence (or lack of it) of the candidate's history, and his expressed preferences without reference to his title or how long he's had it.

(*) In some cases - fairly rare IMO - you might want to know more about how and why he's been so many years in the same position. There are certain companies - large ones - known for an "up-or-out" policy. Not too many that I'm personally sure of, but they exist. If you happen to know (for sure) that the candidate's employer is in this category then it might be worth looking into how he had such a stable (i.e., flat) position for so long. (But be sure the employer behaves that way or you'll be cutting yourself off from a potential good hire without cause.)

In many company structures the only way to "advance" above title of senior dev. roles is to become team leader / go into management / "boss" role in some sense.

Not everyone has a personality suitable for this or even wants to do this.

I wonder what makes you think of this as a red flag.

Obviously, your pre-set expectation is that people need to change jobs, preferably upwards, on a semi-regular basis. Question that assumption and check how much it is a result of your environment. I worked close to (but not in) the advertisement industry for a short while, long enough to catch that in that segment, people expect that you change your job and company every two years about. If you don't, that was weird and possibly a red flag in that environment. In fact, people changed despite being perfectly happy in their current position, for reasons of cultural expectations.

Other industries are different and don't have such a dynamics. Many craftsmen for example work in the same position and company for decades and nobody thinks anything about it.

But if not just your personal but also your company model is based on career and upwards mobility and people changing all the time and this persons model is based on stability and growing in a position instead of into a position, then your cultures might not be a good fit.

If you want to look objectively at the candidate, do it without your preconceptions. Other answers list many good reasons. I just want to say one: In 15 years, neither this guy nor his employer saw a reason to question or change their relationship. Many people don't manage that long a marriage. For me, this guy would be at the top of my list for this reason alone.

I will highlight one of @DigitalBlade969 points

Not everyone is interested in climbing the corporate ladder

I have been offered numerous times to change jobs (either completely switch, or to move up and expand my responsibilities).

I always said: I am an excellent [C-position] and would only be a good or mediocre [another C-position]. This was fine for the companies.

I was also asked that as job interviews, and I answered the same. This was well received (I explicitly discussed that point a few times after the interviews which were the most interesting ones).

I switched companies twice in 25 years, and within the last one (which I am at for 11 years) I never changed my role.

I am not sure how much experience you have with hiring or management but the fact that someones changes or not his role often is neither a good or bad indication on its own. Please note that I added I am not sure how much experience you have with hiring or management at the beginning of the sentence not to be condescendant but rather because you asked the question (which is very good) and that this is a really good opportunity to learn.

As someone who has been with exactly three companies since I started working in my field in the early 80's, it isn't the least bit strange. I'd might still be working at the company I started at, except they cancelled a project and all of us working on it got the axe.

The job met all of my personal criteria including the work being interested, liking the people, a pretty good paycheck and close to home. The place I work now fits the same bill. I like the stability that comes from long term employment at a company. And I'm sure it's a primary factor for many people.

And remember that someone doesn't have to get a new job to learn and keep learning new skills. I've been at this company for over 10 years and despite being seasoned veteran in the field, I've grown immensely in my time here.