These days we have accepted the idea that employees will move from job to job pretty casually. This is especially true in certain industries, like finance, and it’s also very common in countries with low unemployment, like Singapore and Thailand. The days of lifetime employment seem to be gone, particularly within creative fields where the demand for particular talents shifts over time and opportunities pop up when you least expect it. The style of work has changed for many people as well, as they may alternate between working full-time for a company and working as a free agent. There are so many possibilities that it seems hard to stay with one thing permanently, so we often do not think much about long-term employment the way that we used to.

Having said that, though, we should not ignore the benefits of longevity. Just because it’s not as common doesn’t mean it is not worthwhile, though we need to figure out how to put those benefits to use. Companies are often very willing to let someone walk out the door without trying to hold onto them, comfortable with the idea that someone else will come along to take that spot, but are we losing some valuable experience, knowledge, and investment in that person when they leave? Might it be better, at least sometimes, to hold onto someone who has shown they can still grow personally and professionally as the organization continues to grow? Should we try to convince good people to go against the modern trend of changing jobs frequently, and instead making use of their abilities ourselves?

I spent 21 years in the US Air Force, and you might think things would get boring after a while. If I had stayed in the same location, and moved along a traditional career path, that might have been true. However, the military moves its members around every few years, which keeps things fresh and allows for the introduction of new perspectives based on experiences in other units. They also made it possible to have a unique career rather than staying on some preordained path; while many of my peers followed their career field’s “pyramid” for 20 years, I alternated between being a nuclear missile officer, then being a professor at the Air Force Academy, then being a strategist and international affairs specialist. The big advantage of my longevity was that I was immersed in the organization’s culture and understood both the formal and informal relationships necessary for getting things done, and I was able to learn from experiences and apply them later (my 2007 experience in Afghanistan, for instance, was a lot smoother than my 2004-2005 experience in Iraq). At the same time, I avoided getting stuck in a rut and doing things simply because that was how we had done them before; by moving around, trying new things, and engaging in professional development (an MBA and PhD, as well as a one-year staff college and various planning and special operations training courses) I was able to provide a new perspective when I came into a new unit.

Think about how much we celebrate big wedding anniversaries. When we see a couple that has been married for 50 years, we have a party. Marriage is a case where we respect longevity, and again, I think part of the reason for a long, successful marriage is not allowing things to get boring. If there is value in building a life with the same person for a long time, couldn’t a company also build a strong relationship with an employee over a long time, a relationship that offers fresh experiences while takes advantage of all the learning and wisdom that is built along the way?

We look favorably upon longevity in romantic relationships, so perhaps we should consider the benefits of it in employment relationships, too. Though I cannot imagine doing anything for 50 years (and absent any major changes in health care, at this point in my life I probably don’t have to worry about that), there is something to be said for doing something for a long time and doing it right.