Recently, while reading the profile of Christophe de Margerie, the late CEO of Total, the multinational oil giant, something struck me: He joined Total just after school in 1974 and had his entire career in the French company. The question of why people have their entire career in one organisation is actually one that I have been interested in for some years now; Margerie’s case just activated my research into it.

The current Country Chairman of Shell Companies in Nigeria, Mutiu Sunmonu, also has a similar story. He joined Shell in 1978, the same year he completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Lagos. He rose through the ranks to become the CEO of Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria (SPDC) and Chairman of Shell Companies in Nigeria. He is still with the company, 36 years after.

Solomon Oladunni, another Nigerian executive, joined Mobil Producing Nigeria in 1972, shortly after completing his BSc in Economics at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, and stayed with the company for 29 years, rising to become the Executive Vice Chairman, before he retired in 2001.

In a job interview with Shell six years ago, my interviewer introduced himself as a recently retired executive after 30 active years in the company. I know many other top executives that spent that many years in top International Oil Companies (IOC).

All the examples I gave earlier have at least four things in common:

•They studied in the 1970s.

•They joined their companies straight from school.
•They are (were) not the founders of the companies.
•The companies are multinational oil and gas companies.

The above would then raise some questions:

•Does the millennial generation (those born from the 1980s onwards) have such patience to work for so long in the same organisation?


•Does it have anything to do with their employers being oil and gas companies, which are generally regarded as the most comfortable places to work, especially in the oil-producing third world countries?


This tendency to spend many years in the same organisation is more common among the Generation X than the millennial generation. In an article published on Entrepreneur.com, Sarah Rose Attman listed “impatience” as one of the traits of the latter. I agree with her. In fact, it is that trait that reduced the tendency to stay long in one organisation. I belong to the millennial generation and I have changed jobs, voluntarily, three times in the last 7 years. I am very familiar with Corporate Nigeria and it is very rare to see anyone spending 10 years in the same company, unless it is a multinational oil company like Shell or Total. And that answers the second question. In Nigeria at least, comfortability – usually defined solely by the pay – will determine how long people will stay on in a job.

Now, while staying long in one organisation is common in the oil and gas sector, it is actually not limited to that sector. At a career event that was held in Lagos in September last year, I asked two corporate executives who had spent 15 years in an investment bank which they had joined straight after school: why had they remained in the same organisation for so long? They separately answered that it was because their organisation had a corporate culture that suits their personal career objectives, one where they are assigned new roles and challenges every two or three years.

Generally, these two factors play a significant role in the tendency of employees to stay long in an organisation:

•Corporate Policy and Culture: The corporate culture of an organisation – whether written or unwritten, will affect the retention of employees. Policies that encourage people to grow within the organisation will make it easy for them to stay with the company for a long time to come. Companies that prefer internal promotions to sourcing externally in filling up a vacant position, will more likely to deter employees from being on the constant lookout for a higher position outside their organisation.


•Job Satisfaction: The level of job satisfaction determines how long an employee stays in an organisation. No doubt there will be times when the employee will be unhappy about one thing or the other in the organisation, but the general feelings he has of the job will keep him going. Job satisfaction includes the incentives available on the job, among others.


http://www.10minuteswith.com/blog/why-people-work-many-years-one-organisation

Oga Jarus, I will not completely agree with you.

Firstly, it's almost always about the pay when it comes to staying with one company: You mentioned IOCs and investment banks; both industries pay what observers would term 'blood money' so they are almost certainly going to be satisfied with their jobs.

Secondly, I was once told by a career counsellor that it is advisable to change jobs at the early part of your career in order to rise faster in this 21st century. In fact, he said, and I quote: "you should change jobs three times in the first five years of your corporate life in order to hit the top fast", so I don't see this as a bad thing.

Working in one organization till retirement is an outdated trend.
Nowadays it is recommended you work in as many organizations possible to build repertoire. 35 years in one company would only teach you how things work there and nowhere else.
Also with organizational experience(s) under your belt you have a choice to settle for the highest paying organization out of the lot as opposed to waiting for years of promotion with one firm.

Williamso:

Secondly, I was once told by a career counsellor that it is advisable to change jobs at the early part of your career in order to rise faster in this 21st century. In fact, he said, and I quote: "you should change jobs three times in the first five years of your corporate life in order to hit the top fast", so I don't see this as a bad thing.

"Liked" for this comment. Sadly this is a priviledge associated with Westernised nations than third-world ones. The principle still holds and works here in Nigeria.

After perusing through the write up sir,i have this to say.

You might not wish to stay long for these reasons in this 21st century.

** oil bussiness remains and continue to be a hot cake in the 70s 80s.....on to the millinium, i forsee people changing thier oil job over to another job...per barrel would decline in decades.this century is gradually devising an oil free atmosphere.

** those who work in the telecommunication companies barely stay that long (not co-founders). Technological atmosphere is much competitive and of course those in tech company like NOKIA, RIM would be contemplating on a new offer.
Oil bussiness i think is less competitve talk of price benchmark, so it is a sure bet you make profit most of the time. That is why most folks working in IOC like shell,total and the rest dont stretch to see what other job is worth unlike technology where you stay fat only when your innovation is in vogue.

This would probably not happen in this time and age..

I'll come back to finish this comment. .

Arguably, we cannot overrule the importance of job satisfaction as a major contributor to employees' stay in a corporate company and the remuneration is more of the factor responsible for changing jobs.

The emergence of need to change jobs is also conspicuous in Williamso's comment; 'the need to get there as fast as possible' which can be related with the OP's idea of 'impatience'- a charasteristic trait of the 21st century employees.

I think it would suffice to say, job satisfaction, continuous rise in pay and promotions could elongate one's stay in an organisation. Then again, we have to consider the insatiability of human wants. After rising through the ranks one would ask at the end- what's next? And that's what usually motivates the need to change job. The willingness to exploit new fields....

TheRealAdonye:
This would probably not happen in this time and age..

I'll come back to finish this comment. .

After the thread hits front page.

I'll also come back to finish this comment

Oga Jarus,I disagree with your write up today.

The drive to make it then isn't as strong as what we have now. Why sit in one organization for too long,when there are many area,and job to venture into,after-all,varieties is the spice of life.

I see those who are totally committed to a place,as those who are always satisfied with their present condition,and not willing to take new challenges..

Money

The fuel dat drives it all.

Passion

The One dat makes u stay

typing......

I agree with all of you.

If you read the article, it was more descriptive than evaluation.

I never said or implied anywhere which is better.

I used myself as an example that I have changed jobs thrice in 7 years. If I am still in any of the two earlier, I will not be earning 60% of what I earn in my current place. Neither will I have the satisfaction I have here.

I have very high job satisfaction in my current workplace and it is one I don't have any issue with spending the rest of my 9-5 career in (provided I keep moving up the ladder as has happened in the last 3 years) and all other working conditions kept constant or bettered. It will take a Manager position in an IOC for me to ever consider a move.

I agree with the strategy of moving from one company to another (for higher position or better brand) in the early stages of career. In fact, I advise people in our line to start their career in PwC, KPMG etc solely because they are good stepping stones after 3-5 years.

So I never said it is wrong. Both are OK. It depends on circumstances. Of course, if you get job in a company like Shell or Mobil or Total, your options are limited - only very companies will ever make you consider quitting.

I know that this thread will make front page but before it those, let me just make y'all aware that I was here from France
jarus thread making front page since 760BC

hmmmm. interesting

If there's anything, the new generation guys are risk takers and have an insatiable appetite. They want changes or dynamism and can easily get bored. Ultimately, money gets to play a big role.


This story ties down with this on a feminine side:

http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-business-school-women-ceos-2014-11

• More than 70% of the 24 female CEOs spent over 10 years at the company they now run.

• 20% of the female CEOs in the sample started at
the company they now run straight out of college,
like Mary Barra of GM.

• Many female CEOs spend decades at one company
before jumping to run another, like Avon CEO Sheri
McCoy, who spent 30 years at Johnson & Johnson.

• The median length of time spent with one company
before becoming a CEO is 23 years.

Jarus:
I agree with all of you.

If you read the article, it was more descriptive than evaluation.

I never said or implied anywhere which is better.

I used myself as an example that I have changed jobs thrice in 7 years. If I am still in any of the two earlier, I will not be earning 60% of what I earn in my current place. Neither will I have the satisfaction I have here.

I have very high job satisfaction in my current workplace and it is one I don't have any issue with spending the rest of my 9-5 career in (provided I keep moving up the ladder as has happened in the last 3 years) and all other working conditions kept constant or bettered. It will take a Manager position in an IOC for me to ever consider a move.

I agree with the strategy of moving from one company to another (for higher position or better brand) in the early stages of career. In fact, I advise people in our line to start their career in PwC, KPMG etc solely because they are good stepping stones after 3-5 years.

So I never said it is wrong. Both are OK. It depends on circumstances. Of course, if you get job in a company like Shell or Mobil or Total, your options are limited - only very companies will ever make you consider quitting.

"Oh Jarus son of The Most High... I pray thee, connect thou thy brother (kentnickole) for I searcheth for job all day"

I will be back

Not for sale.