I agree with most of the posts so far. There is some value in turnover. One post mentioned five years as the longest to stay, which isn't true for me, so I presume it isn't true across the board. You can stay longer and still learn as long as the company is growing and taking on new challenges.

I think the shortest time frame one should stay should be about two years. Anything less is unfair to the company and the investment they made in you. Unless there are really good reasons, staying less will affect your ability to find employment later in life.

As to the longest time frame, I don't see a limit. Not everyone needs to be a star, and some people don't want to be. There is a person who was one of our most valuable assets who retired after 45 years. He didn't outperform everyone technically, but he mentored every individual who has looked to improve their performance and skills. We are better off due to his leadership. He never rose above first level management, but he didn't need to. His leaving has left a hole that we simply will never fill.

As to causes of turnover, I believe companies cause this more often than not. There is a huge difference between an incentive to stay and an incentive to leave, but they don't get that. For example, we have had a large amount of turnover in the past few years, and the solution chosen was that you have to pay back any training you took up to two years after termination - any termination. Guess what happened as soon as they announced that idea.

All of us are willing to put up with a certain number of missteps, some more than others. A lot of people won't put up with much, and I think generally speaking the more valuable someone is, the less likely they are to put up with it.