So .. someone with less than 5 years on the workforce?
Look, I'm 60+ (ish) and still actively managing projects in code, engineering, mining, signal processing+interp - from my PoV anyone with less than five years on the workforce is still a child.
When I look for people to land roles that shepard a five+ year project through I'm looking for people with at least 8-10 years employed already with at least one two year run and a stated intent to "settle" into a position - ie maybe kids, perhaps a new house, maybe family in the area, etc.
Exposure to multiple bad projects is fine, especially if they can articulate how things went bad and how things might have been better managed to avoid that (ie big picture awareness).
You do have a point, however you might be setting the bar a little low .. less than five years in is barely a toe in the paddling pool of life.
To get what the op is looking for, you put the 10 year req, then structure comp ballooning towards the end of the vest and it will get you exactly those people op wants.
You don’t say, “must be settling with a family”. You offer something that is only enticing if you’re going to stay 5 years.
If what you're saying is "that's what I'm looking for but I wouldn't say it..."
I dunno, that seems like exactly the sort of thing people would complain about.
This seems odd to say the least.
As I stated, for longer termed positions that require some stability matching the duration of a capital build project we look for people that have had exposure to a variety of past experiences and some demonstrated ability to stick something out coupled with some indication they making long term plans.
Which bit of that goes agin your HR policy?
Perhaps you might like to re-read what was written, slowly and very carefully.
Some people struggle with parsing meaning from English and jump to rash interpretation.
FWIW your approach is the most sound one I read on this thread and how most successful companies probably do it. I do feel it is slightly discriminatory though against those with un ordinary paths
Some positions require a degree of intelligence, there are many things that can demonstrate levels and types of intelligence.
Some positions demand a certain amount of physical endurance, there are many things that can indicate physical ability.
Some positions demand a level of stability and commitment to time scale, there are many different factors that can indicate that.
Some comments require a certain ability to read qualifiers and nuance in the English language, there are many that breeze right past such things and imagine things unwritten.
None are in any way indicators of professional capabilities.
All this seems to do is make it harder for candidates to know if they're truly qualified, causing them to apply to more things, many of which they're not qualified for, wasting everyone's time.
if you're looking for someone (any age, any gender, any etc.) for a long term position who will stick through the good, the bad, and the ugly that might occur during a five to ten year time frame
then you're looking for any signs and indications that people have some past experience of sticking through things, are willing to stick through things in the future, and have an understanding of how things can go sour and what steps can be taken to mediate.
There are many indications of the ability to make a long term commitment and survive a rocky path, not all of them traditional and conventional, with the least common factor being some time at the pump.
If you want people to "stick through...the bad and the ugly" compensate them accordingly and perhaps most importantly make sure their salary keeps pace with the market as a whole instead of the typical 2-3% raises most people see every year. But even that won't keep the best people, because the best people don't have to tolerate assholes at their job, they can just go get a better one.
Even then it is daddy that made them CEO and they are CEO of tidying their bedroom.
Edit: seem I have triggered some 24 year old C suite excutives
Our time on Earth is limited, and five years is a non-trivial percentage of our working life. If you're a highly compensated engineer and you retire on the earlier side of normal for that cohort, you've got maybe 30-35 years.
They... didn't? A developer who has a typical graduate academic career, went straight into the software industry, and then had 5 jobs for less than 9 months each is probably in their mid-20s. In terms of technical skills and professional maturity anyone like that probably is still almost a child in terms of their career and the series of very short tenures definitely makes that more likely.
Our time on Earth is limited, and five years is a non-trivial percentage of our working life.
That's true. But as you point out yourself it's still only a relatively small part of our likely working life unless we luck out and reach FIRE status with a big exit or something. You can pick up some useful skills and develop an effective professional mindset in five years. But you'll do the same again in the next five and then again in the five after that.
Done. It's like people who stay at one job for year never practice for interviews or something.
"You can absolutely explain those stints, and a reasonable interviewer won’t penalize you, but my lived experience is that landing a senior role requires passing multiple somewhat arbitrary process gates"