Are You a “Hugger”? (A Job-Hugger, That Is)

Are people clinging to their jobs for longer because of uncertainty in the workplace? This question is important and relevant to all employers: A certain level of “frictional” unemployment is healthy in an economy, and when employees stay in roles they dislike merely out of fear, productivity suffers, opportunities for others get blocked and career advancement stalls. This topic is also academically interesting; the way that uncertainty affects decision-making has been the subject of extensive research. This short piece will cover both the practical and the academic.

At JAMS Pathways, we see this kind of hesitation not just in individual employees, but across entire organizations. When fear of change or uncertainty goes unaddressed, teams can become stuck in cycles of avoidance—something that proactive, structured dialogue can help break before it impacts performance.

Certainty vs. Uncertainty in Decision-Making 

Whether deciding to stay in a job, change jobs, adopt a new business strategy or even resolve a personal conflict, an employee is weighing the known (the bird in the hand) against the unknown (the birds that may be in the bush). In my nearly 40 years in the dispute-resolution industry—teaching, training, mediating—I’ve seen this dynamic in nearly every matter in which I’ve been involved, from 30,000-person class actions to catastrophic natural disaster relief to nonprofit boards struggling with communication issues to couples navigating a kitchen remodel: Do we maintain the status quo or move to a new alternative? Litigate or settle? Reconcile or divorce? Play it safe or take a risk?

Cognitive psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman studied how uncertainty influences decision-making. Among their findings was that uncertainty generates fear and that fear leads people to freeze, to make a choice to preserve the status quo, even when the uncertainty is a mirage (both options lead to similar outcomes, yet we stand still at the fork in the road).

One illustrative study involved professional stock advisors. They were asked about how the outcome of the 1988 presidential election would impact public utilities stocks. If the Republican candidate won, they believed that public utilities would decline in favor of private utilities (which would trigger a sell recommendation). If the Democrat won, all utilities would decline (again, a sell recommendation). But in their advisory letters and communications, they actually recommended people to “hold,” or wait and see who won the election. In short, both forks led to the same place—but because the outcome was uncertain, the advisors froze.

That said, we can see that people do make decisions and they sometimes take on risk. Not everyone freezes in the face of every decision.

Let’s take a look now and see how this is playing out at work.

“Job-Hugging” in the Modern Workplace

There is evidence that this decision-freezing phenomenon is manifesting in today’s work environment. Let’s look at the backdrop:

• Uncertainty is rampant. Worries about AI displacing jobs, concerns over tariffs and trade, large-company layoff announcements and shifting demographics all contribute to a heightened sense of career risk. For instance, Amazon recently cut 14,000 positions and told remaining employees to “lean in to AI”—a directive whose meaning is still ambiguous.
• Economists say a certain level of frictional unemployment is healthy. Frictional unemployment consists of people voluntarily leaving jobs, searching for new ones and shifting careers. Another way to think of it is as short-term joblessness when workers are between jobs or entering the labor force. A proper level of frictional unemployment is a sign of a dynamic and healthy economy. Historically, the noncyclical (natural) unemployment rate in the U.S. is about 4.3%, a level that is within the range of what’s optimal.  
• Yet recent data suggest that “quits” (voluntary job departures) have fallen from pandemic peaks, implying fewer people are choosing to leave jobs and possibly more are staying put. For example, the quits rate reached a high of 3.0% in November 2021 and has since ticked down to around 2.0% as of mid-2025. The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey show a quits rate of 2.0% in July 2025.  

These signals raise the question: Are employees increasingly choosing to stay in jobs they may not love because the outside world looks too uncertain? The reasons for job-hugging or job-hopping may depend in part on the tenure of the employee.

Generational Patterns and “Hugger” Behavior

The reasons for staying put vary across generations. Let’s break it down.

Young Workers (20s)

• My children and their peers report a prevalent view: It’s better to stick with a known job than gamble on a “better” job under uncertain conditions. Even roles like barista (among college grads) are occupied for three or more years rather than constant hopping.
• On the other hand, actual data show that tenure in first jobs for young people remains around the historical average of 2.7 years.

Middle Generation (30s to 50s)

• Twenty years ago, job-hopping was seen as the career accelerator: moving from firm to firm, sector to sector, especially before marriage, mortgage and children.
• But once responsibilities accumulate, many settle. A close friend job-hopped early in his career very successfully. He became a VP in his 30s after having six jobs in nine years. But since getting married and starting a family, he’s remained in the same job. Among his generation, job-hugging may correlate with external commitments, making risk less palatable.

Senior Workers (60s and  up)

• My contemporaries (I’m 64) worry that leaving their job will lead to involuntarily retiring—at a time when financial security is uncertain and longer lifespans mean working longer is necessary.
• With fewer defined-benefit pensions, weaker cost-of-living adjustments on Social Security and an expectation that one should wait until age 70 to start taking Social Security benefits, many senior workers are staying put rather than stepping aside. They’re not “job-hugging”; they’re avoiding retirement and may be preventing younger workers from advancing.

Across all generations, what we observe at JAMS Pathways is a shared pattern: Fear constrains forward movement. But when organizations foster communication, mentorship and collaborative planning, they empower individuals at every stage to make intentional, confident choices rather than reactive ones.

Why Employers Should Care

If employees are staying when they’d otherwise move, that has consequences—for both the organization and individual careers.

1. Changing incentives

Historically, employers rewarded long service and loyalty. Then came the era of job-hopping as normal. Now, perhaps we’ve moved into the era of quiet quitting and “job-hugging”.

An employee staying put out of fear rather than motivation is not likely to be as productive of successful as a dedicated, growth-minded longer-tenure employee.  

2. Leverage for workforce development

From an employer’s perspective, a risk-averse employee may present an opportunity: They may be more open to retraining and upskilling (e.g., learning to work with AI) because they perceive fewer external opportunities.

The moment of uncertainty may give leverage to the employer: If employees feel limited, they may acquiesce to new expectations, reskilling and changes.

3. The blocked-pipeline issue

When job-huggers stay in roles they’ve plateaued in, motivated younger or mid-career employees may stall because of blocked advancement opportunities.

Intrinsic motivation (learning, growing) is superior to extrinsic (keeping a job to avoid risk). If a motivated person hits a ceiling because someone else is staying put, morale and productivity may decline.

A Crossroads for Workers and Employers Alike 

The idea of the job-hugger—someone who stays in a job not out of enthusiasm or growth but out of fear of change—may be more relevant now than ever. Uncertainty in the labor market, rapid technological disruption (e.g., AI), economic headwinds, trade policy shifts and demographic pressures all contribute to a more risk-averse stance among workers.

For individuals, this raises a warning: Staying too long in a role you don’t love because the outside seems scarier may cost you more in the long run—in skill stagnation, suppressed advancement, reduced earnings and missed opportunities.

For organizations, the phenomenon presents both risks and opportunities. A less mobile workforce might reduce turnover costs, but it might also drain motivation, block advancement and reduce organizational agility. Conversely, it may offer a window for upskilling and internal mobility if employers are proactive.

In short, yes, there are likely more job-huggers today than when change felt safer and mobility was easier. Recognizing this trend is the first step; deciding how to respond thoughtfully—for both employees and employers—is the next. If you’re staying because of fear, ask yourself: What’s the cost of staying? What’s the risk of moving? Which is greater? The answer can be the catalyst for positive change. If a job-hugger can summon the courage to make a move and find employment that better matches their skills and interests, maybe they can leap to a job they hug out of love rather than fear.

Written by Richard Birke.