Even after living in 12 different places and holding 15 different positions, I still found myself afraid of change. Yet what scares me even more is the idea of becoming institutionalized. I often wonder whether I am truly moving forward or simply running from something. In my first corporate job, before airplanes offered wifi, executives joked that staying in the air made you harder to hold accountable. This attitude reflected a lack of real ownership in understanding the company’s success.
Sous chefs face constant challenges and expectations to keep our careers moving forward. We refine our culinary and leadership skills under various chefs, collecting experiences and celebrity mentors like trophies. Committees that lack an understanding of strategic culinary career development often focus primarily on these well-known industry figures. Throughout my transitions, I frequently asked myself whether I was genuinely seeking improvement in my abilities or simply pursuing better outcomes. My journey took me through clubs, hotels, standalone restaurants, and different regions across the United States. Eventually, I found my niche in the luxury resort sector, where I spent most of my professional career.
Talent creates opportunities but can also produce professional insecurity. High-risk takers tend to focus on future possibilities, while risk-averse leaders prefer to remain grounded in the present, often solving problems themselves rather than delegating. At one point, we hired a Director of Food and Beverage who had held several roles at different organizations for less than two years each. On the surface, she appeared to be steadily advancing. Her mentor had advised her to spend only 18 to 24 in each role, gain experience, and then move on. I observed, however, that leaders who change positions too frequently rarely take full ownership of projects or see them through to completion. They also miss the confidence that comes from witnessing positive results over time. I encouraged this young leader to pause, evaluate, and commit to our club for a longer period. To our mutual benefit, she stayed for five years, grew professionally, and saw numerous projects completed. Her development centered on making meaningful contributions rather than simply holding titles within our small club.
This raises an important question: What is the right amount of time to stay with an organization, and how much loyalty is expected?
Large brands often allow employees to relocate without losing a sense of loyalty to the organization. Clubs, however, may view frequent moves as unreliable—especially for executive chefs compared to sous chefs. In China, kitchen staff often work together for long periods, with the head chef acting almost like a union representative and maintaining consistency in hiring. Committees frequently ask whether an executive chef will bring their own team. I always bring a trusted sous chef to ensure efficiency. Many committees want rapid change while retaining the entire existing staff, which can sometimes contradict the mission.
Clubs invest significantly in executive chefs, valuing both their expertise and their loyalty. It is important to consider what clubs expect in return for the salaries they offer. While people work for people, chefs should also recognize their professional responsibilities within the industry. Leaving a club too soon can negatively affect future candidates and undermine the commitments made at the start of employment.
Young executive chefs should expect to stay at least three years, with five years often considered ideal. Short tenures can raise doubts about decision-making, especially after two or three quick transitions. Large brands may request relocation to different properties, but higher compensation often comes with greater expectations of loyalty. Talent matters, but tenure matters as well. Hiring managers and general managers must carefully evaluate candidates who move too frequently, as repeated transitions affect operational stability.
Risk deserves recognition, particularly when changing roles or relocating. When a young chef resigned, I congratulated them out of respect for their courage. I never attempted to persuade them to stay or offered a promotion as a countermeasure. Leadership should recognize that a two-week notice primarily serves the employer, not the employee. Aside from retirement or long-term service, concluding the relationship efficiently can sometimes benefit everyone involved.
This philosophy differs from traditional succession planning or mentorship. In Florida, each season we evaluated and planned the next role or strategy for every kitchen leader. By taking a proactive approach, we prepared for the future alongside our chefs. When we developed growth plans for them, they recognized that we were investing in their careers—even before new opportunities appeared. Crafting these succession plans also strengthened my own commitment to staying. Taking calculated risks is often necessary for leaders to seize new opportunities, though some individuals are more comfortable with risk than others. The same applies to you.
