I had an interesting text-chat conversation with a former coworker recently (excerpted):
It's a pretty good article.
I have thought about careers and life in terms of Traveller's terms for quite some time; my blogger profile used to have what I estimate my Traveller stats at, including terms in various occupations. When I'm at a new company, I think of staying a full four years as a good solid run; I've only done it once so far, and it was a pretty darn successful four years, definitely worth an extra benefit roll (with a shift in company direction in the final year or so which I did not think promising). More commonly, after 18-36 months, if things are looking mediocre, I move on. Not a failed survival roll, but more like a failed roll to promote.
So I think it's a little funny to see a serious publication like the Harvard Business Review take basically the same perspective, following in the footsteps of some geeks in the '70s trying to model careers.