While it was not always true, my observation is that BY FAR the people who were the longest tenured at the Fortune 100 firm were the most gossipy, the most committed to political infighting, the most obstructionist toward getting real work done and virtually ALWAYS the most selfish with regards to teamwork and rewards. Those qualities were abhorrent to me and after more than a decade, I finally left for a less stable, but far more exciting and challenging work environment.

Fifteen years later many of the same gossipy, selfish people who I found abhorrent are STILL at the Fortune 100 company and have risen to the most senior ranks of the management hierarchy where they are able to inflict great damage on the rest of the many ten of thousands of employees. The intrigue and back-stories among these folks makes fact-based fiction novels(I’m thinking DaVinci Code here)seem tame.

I do not believe there is a high correlation between competence and tenure in positions or companies. It’s certainly true that a whole series of short-term jobs might raise questions, but decades long stable-employment frequently speaks to a “behavior sink” mentality of self-preservation and hiding, rather than laudable qualities of contribution and sacrifice.

I’d much rather hire a fast-thinking, risk taking, challenge- seeking adventurer than a mild-mannered, back-stabbing blob of a person who will quietly do the minimum amount of work necessary to survive, while contributing little real value to the organization. I’ve seen way too much of the latter type, while most forward progress is actually created by the former.