It is said that change is de facto ruler of universe but change always come with resistance to change. Now when it comes to changing a job there is lot anxiety that needs to be address before making a move. I would never suggest frequent job change because that does not look good in your CV and majority of job hoppers get eliminated at sourcing level of recruitment cycle. Moreover I believe if you have joined a company that is your decision and you should stick to it as there is always some scope of learning wherever you join if you have right intentions. When you work in a company there are certain things that you do as your key responsibility area and you become expert in the same and there also some new things that you never knew but you learned from your colleagues/Boss/other division. So those new things that you learn can become your weapon to hunt for a new job. Changing a job can bring more money, more responsibility, better learning curve, bigger network and perhaps elimination of monotony temporarily. Changing a job can also result losing a safe heaven, with all uncertainty and boring training schedules. Always ready with answers why you want to change?
If I see change from employer perspective; HR folks would always support an experience person to stay in the organization keeping in mind the company expenses that incurred in training and development of the employee to make him suitable and productive. But the fact of matter is if someone stays in the organization for a division for too long there is an equal chance of he/she becoming a liability rather than asset for the company. This may happen due to development of a venomous leader in the company who has too much influence in company policy and feels that he can’t be replaced and somehow employer also trapped in the same illusion. Such toxic leader lives in a close group and nobody dare to challenge their opinion if some do that they are blown out of the company. Why employees are so complacent in government jobs? Because they have firm belief that they can’t be replaced and in cases where get transferred from one city to another somehow it restricts them from turning in to a venomous leader because they are unable to form a closed group to support their ill practices. That’s why I always feel that horizontal movement is significant in keeping employee productive both from employer and employee perspective and too much vertical growth can lead to a development of venomous leader. Moreover if someone is leaving a company after substantial stay and is a true leader in that case he would have developed some of his likes e.g. Jack Welch had concrete succession plan; he developed 3 leaders equivalent to his capacity before hanging up his shoes, one was elected as CEO, and the other two left within 10 days of the decision because they deserved no lesser position. So the point is if someone leaves the company no matter what position he is in; its good for the company because it restricts in development of venomous leader and if is not that type probably there would be couple of potential leader ready who deserve to take on the vacant position.