Skip to content
Sometimes, while we are talking to candidates and employers, a common theme starts to emerge. At the moment, the question of commitment, particularly amongst younger candidates, is featuring regularly for both groups. Commitment scepticism, as it is becoming known, seems to be a hot topic.
Commitment Scepticism
It is understandable that employers will pause a little when reviewing CVs if they see shorter employment periods. In finance, where continuity, governance and consistency are key, shorter tenures in roles can prompt questions about loyalty, resilience and long-term reliability. Trust and reliability are, of course, highly desirable traits and therefore longevity in a role has traditionally been seen as a marker of stability.
At the same time, though, we need to ask ourselves, ‘What if younger finance professionals view career progression through a different camera?’ The employment landscape in 2026 is a very different place from even just a few years ago. Perhaps what seems to be regular job changes on a CV could be more the result of a general shift in attitudes towards employment. Maybe, rather than being an issue around loyalty or trust in the candidate, it could be a result of a scepticism about the value of longer term employment. What if they are not committing to long term employment because they see no benefit to it as a career option, and therefore missing out on some great opportunities?
Commitment scepticism, the mistrust of the benefits of staying with an employer for a long time, sadly seems to be doing neither candidates or prospective employers any favours.
Longevity as a Measure of Reliability
For many senior leaders, a history of extended time in a role carries a lot of weight.
It traditionally implies a series of desirable soft skills and traits such as cultural alignment, dependability, loyalty, growth potential and many others.
When it comes to finance employee candidates, though, this perception of commitment can take on additional importance because it also supports some of the desirable outcomes of an effective team. For example, time in role is often connected to:
- Consistent reporting cycles
- Strong audit preparation
- Understanding of the wider employer context for accounting functions
- Reliable application of regulatory needs and deadlines
High turnover of staff is legitimately seen as something that introduces risk. It disrupts continuity, increases pressure on remaining staff, and can even potentially weaken governance processes. Not to mention the financial cost of replacing team members and then training them into the role.
The concern around shorter tenures is not misplaced; in fact, it reflects operational realities.
A Different View of Career Security
So, why is this worth a second thought if the reliability questions have not changed?
It is all about context. The Gen Z and late millennial professionals entered or had their early employment experiences during a period defined by economic volatility, digital transformation, Covid lockdowns, and a widespread increase in discussions around the mental and physical well-being effects of working life. Generalising is always dangerous, but there does seem to be more of a focus on these areas for the younger professional.
For many, therefore, long-term security is not linked to remaining in one organisation indefinitely. Instead, it is tied to maintaining a strong, transferable skill set. Low unemployment levels, skills gaps and access to multiple job opportunities may well have also helped to shift what is considered the main factor in ideal employment from stability to career trajectory.
In short, a career for many people now is about growth and development rather than the stability of staying in a position.
If a role does not offer:
- Clear progression pathways
- Exposure to new responsibilities
- Structured development
- Regular feedback
Then the idea of remaining in that role could be seen as more of a risk than moving to a new one.
In this mindset, movement is not a rejection of commitment. It is an attempt to safeguard long-term employability. As a result, desirable candidates are in a permanent state of passive interest in a new role because they become ‘commitment cynical’ if the current role isn’t meeting their expectations.
Previous generations may well have been prepared to endure challenging periods as part of career progression. Today’s younger professionals seem more likely to reassess quickly when expectations are not met.
This does not necessarily indicate fragility, just a lower tolerance for uncertainty around growth. If there is not enough visible development as a reward, then short-term discomfort can appear frustrating rather than developmental.
The distinction is subtle but significant. In fairness to the employee who is looking for what they feel is the best career potential, it is understandable are reasonable that they would look to any viable opportunity to make that potential a reality.
Moving Towards a Middle Ground
So, if employers are right to be concerned for some very practical reasons and candidates are right to focus on the best career option by moving to new roles, then how is all this to be resolved?
Clearly, any approach requires adjustment from both sides.
For employers, this may involve:
- Making career pathways explicit
- Providing structured feedback and mentorship
- Offering opportunities beyond core transactional tasks
- Setting clear expectations
- Creating development milestones
- Framing ‘challenging periods’ as growth opportunities
The principle at play here is that if progression is highly visible, retention should improve.
Younger professionals need to recognise that development is not always immediate and that staying put will also strengthen long-term outcomes. It is important to accept that not every plateau signals stagnation, and to understand that some temporary situations build depth of understanding, resilience and technical expertise. Reviewing situations in these contexts is vital if they want to build a career via in house development rather than the more dangerous ‘employer hopping’ method that commitment cynicism breeds.
Rethinking the CV Narrative
In light of the changing attitudes, shorter times in roles should perhaps not automatically be interpreted as instability. Neither should requests for hybrid working or similar concessions. A candidate with multiple 18- to 24-month roles demonstrating increasing responsibility, broader system exposure and strong references may actually be showing ambition and accelerated growth rather than a lack of commitment. After all, if those roles and responsibilities were in a single employment period, wouldn’t they present a rather impressive history of development?
Evaluating contributions made to multiple employers and the trajectory of the candidate’s career growth could well provide as accurate an assessment of their potential as the more traditional preference for longer periods of employment.
Shared the Responsibility for Developing a Career
It would seem that any long-term employment in finance depends on a balanced ‘contract’ around not just the constant factors such as salary and conditions, but also other areas that are now more important to candidates. These include a focus on areas such as development, access to hybrid working, holidays and other ‘downtime’ guarantees such as switch off policies when out of work hours, and other life balance needs.
When you bring it right down to basics, all we are looking to achieve is a simple result.
Employers seek continuity, reliability and stability, and employees seek progression, development and meaningful work.
Neither position is unreasonable, they are related, and neither position is unattainable.
Commitment in a modern finance team is now possibly less about the security and safety of having a job and more about mutual investment in that job and what it has to offer for the future. Finding the middle ground, a place where growth is visible and expectations are clear on both sides of the table, creates an environment in which staying with the employer feels purposeful, and everyone wins.
It Starts with Recruitment
It is one thing to work on long term retention for existing employees, and another to attract the candidates in the first place. Nothing has changed in the basic, common sense principle that if you want the best team, you need to attract the best candidates. However, what that means for your recruitment may well be worth a discussion.
When employers in the financial sector actively design roles that support the candidates long term goals, and make that clear in the recruitment process, they will be hitting the needs of not just the potential employee, but also their own. For a candidate to invest in a role, they need to understand that progression sometimes requires patience as well as ambition. So, the more they see of that potential from the initial contact, the more likely they are to join and then stay with an employer.