4 ms·

I'm curious: how bad is it to leave a new job soon after starting (because you realize the product isn't as great as what you thought it would be/too much compe

by throwitaway1981 11y ago

I'm curious: how bad is it to leave a new job soon after starting (because you realize the product isn't as great as what you thought it would be/too much competition in space)? When you are a high performer, you really don't want to waste everyone's time if you end up in this bad situation. What is the professional thing to do? Asking because the article mentioned some people staying only for a few weeks. In a small startup, not seeing traction would be reasonable cause for departure since your paycheck directly depends on it. In a large company, things are not always interrelated in the short term. So there is more time to try out things. I guess the question is: how long should one try to make a new job work?

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
As long as you can justify in your next interview. Your employer will want to know whether you jumped ship to top off your salary, or if you really weren't getting what you put in. Take a case of stagnation as a chance to try something big. Even if it doesn't work, it makes for a compelling narrative.
ufmace 11y ago
It only really matters in the eyes of potential future employers, so consider how it looks to them. Having done interviews and resume screening myself, I wouldn't balk too hard at one quick departure, but I would want to hear a good explanation for why you left so soon. The job and/or company being very clearly something different from what you were told would be a good one. Multiple quick departures in a row are kind of a red flag for somebody looking to hire a full-time employee, as opposed to a consultant of some kind.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- whitneyrzoller 11y ago
  It would seem to matter not. Have a look at JMs career trajectory following his (first) exit from Amazon. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmccormack https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmccormack Amazon welcomes him back after a two month tour of duty with Yahoo. Six months later he goes to Google. He's got some obvious next steps: Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Snapchat?! Throw in some sentimental stints back at old Amazon, that's a career baby!
- sulam 11y ago
  It matters to the people you leave, too. When people spend a lot of energy recruiting you, doing due diligence on you and you on them, it (hopefully) builds a fair amount of trust and mutual respect. When you leave after a short time, that trust is violated, often in both directions. Barring something somewhat unusual (cough Clinkle cough), people are generally going to be very transparent with people they hire to help with a turn-around. When you have every opportunity to determine whether or not you're up for a challenge and then 3 months later are like "nah, actually, too hard" it will probably have some effect, at least with people that were closely involved in your hiring.
  - nedwin 11y ago
    I've also seen where people come into a role being promised autonomy and once they start finding that they're stuck into a pre-existing strategy or hierarchy that doesn't want to change.
    - ska 11y ago
      Trust has already been broken there. If the job is a bait and switch, why would you expect someone to stay if they have other options?
  - sheepmullet 11y ago
    > people are generally going to be very transparent with people they hire to help with a turn-around. Really? I've never had an interview where I've been told the team has constant high pressure arbitrary deadlines, a culture of micromanagement, a lack of autonomy, no career progression, low skilled colleagues, etc. Yet these kind of companies are the majority.
  - ufmace 11y ago
    I suppose it could seem unprofessional to the company you're leaving, depending on your perspective on things. But unless you're in a very tight-knit community, exactly what your previous company thinks of you usually has no relevance to your future employment options - specifically because it's a matter of perspective whether the departure was justified or not, and whether you'd be likely to leave the new company. If your field really is that tight-knit, then you'll have to use your best judgement. If the employer you're leaving really is that bad, then you have to trust that everyone knows it, and nobody will blame you for leaving them. They might more wonder why you hadn't heard about how they really were ahead of time. Or if you actually are uncooperative, unprofessional, or otherwise unproductive, expect that to get around too.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  I have two quick departures (4 months and 5 months respectively) on my resume and it has caused me a lot of problems. In both cases, the companies that I joined pulled unbelievable bait-and-switches on me, and my job was essentially unrelated to the job they described during the hiring process. I tried to stick it out in each case, and I even received excellent performance reviews during both short stints, but the burnout and the effect on my mental health of suffering through such egregious bait-and-switch situations was too much and in both cases I couldn't sustain working any longer and so I quit. I want to find a place to work for a long time, but the quality of software work these days is laughably poor. There are so many ways a job can be bad -- not just normal bad, where you grind it out for 40 hours (I've done plenty of that too and lasted long stints at previous employers), but really, seriously soul-crushingly bad -- that it has made me considerably more paranoid about the motivations and red flags that employers reveal during interviews and hiring. In general though, most people are willing to at least ask me to explain my unusual resume, and any time my technical skills are evaluated early on, they can see that I know what I am talking about and it goes OK after that. I'm not sure what lessons this has taught me. Everyone says not to quit a bad job until you know for sure that you have another job lined up. But even though I've quit two jobs in a row and had to live through very hard circumstances and very long, demoralizing spells of unemployment, I still don't actually think my overall life would have been better if I had continued to allow myself to be so egregiously mistreated in those past jobs. I still think the awful grinding-out-the-unemployment stuff has been at least an order of magnitude better than enduring mistreatment, even though it hasn't been good.
JSeymourATL 11y ago
> how long should one try to make a new job work? Depends on your mandate going in. Stick-to-itivness is a desirable leadership quality. Most industries consider business cycles in annual terms. If you can't move the needle in 24-36 months, do everyone a favor and move-on. A 3 week stint however, is not worth putting on your CV.
- biot 11y ago
  > Stick-to-itivness Tenacity.
  - sirkneeland 11y ago
    vocabularity
  - squeaky-clean 11y ago
    "Stick-to-itivness" is a perfectly cromulent word.
    - JSeymourATL 11y ago
      Yes Professor Smith, and Thank You!
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - talaketu 11y ago
    Resilience
ChuckMcM 11y ago
When I'm interviewing someone who bounced from a job I ask them about it. A lot depends on their answer. Everyone has different levels of introspection and self awareness. Experiencing a job where, after a very short while you left that job[1], means that something reasonably powerful didn't work out. How the candidate deals with that speaks to their ability to understand themselves and the situations they are in. Bottom line, it could encourage me to hire someone or not hire someone, just like any other bit of experience in their background. Just in this case its more about them and less about what they did in that previous role. [1] and the company is still in business, and it didn't announce it killed the division you joined just as you joined Etc.
HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
how long should one try to make a new job work? This question really speaks to me right now! One of the major reasons I was hired into my current job of less than two months is that I have lot of experience working in a very process-heavy environment and I'm tasked with developing appropriate processes for the pretty chaotic company I'm with now. While I'm sure I can turn them around, there are challenges coming from every direction. The situation is somewhat worse than I expected and I need to have a frank talk with the owner about what timeframe he expects to see a significant move of the needle. I've made a few minor improvements in the 6 weeks I've been here, but people's attitudes are going to be the hardest to change. I give it a year.
chiph 11y ago
If you're out of there in less than 2 weeks, I would just leave it off the resume entirely.
x0x0 11y ago
I'd say it depends on why. My personal experience is a cto totally lied about a job. I was hired to do ml and ended up being a generic backend dev; nothing I worked on required any ml knowledge. I quit after 8 weeks. Oddly enough, the cto -- an early google engineer too -- was very butthurt. He told me I was childish for expecting the job description to match the job; I told him he was a liar and that was the end of that working relationship. I definitely wouldn't be bothered by someone saying "it wasn't a fit" for a job that lasted under 3 months. In fact, I'd probably think less of you for hanging around in a bad situation for 8 months rather than just saying this isn't working and bailing fast. When I hire, if it isn't working, and we can't make it work, ending the situation quickly rather than dragging things out makes the best of a crummy situation.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I used to work for a guy who would advertise a ML/data science job and then tried to convince applicants who made it thru the pipe to take a software engineering role instead. Didn't get a lot of hires that way.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    weird, eh? Must be an Engineering Shortage!
- gaius 11y ago
  He told me I was childish for expecting the job description to match the job Seems like he should have been head of marketing, not technology.
discardorama 11y ago
Nothing beats 24 hours: (ironically, an ex-Yahoo): http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a-clinkle-executive-quit-after-24-hours-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a-clinkle-executive-quit-...

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

As long as you can justify in your next interview. Your employer will want to know whether you jumped ship to top off your salary, or if you really weren't getting what you put in. Take a case of stagnation as a chance to try something big. Even if it doesn't work, it makes for a compelling narrative.

ufmace 11y ago

It only really matters in the eyes of potential future employers, so consider how it looks to them. Having done interviews and resume screening myself, I wouldn't balk too hard at one quick departure, but I would want to hear a good explanation for why you left so soon. The job and/or company being very clearly something different from what you were told would be a good one. Multiple quick departures in a row are kind of a red flag for somebody looking to hire a full-time employee, as opposed to a consultant of some kind.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
whitneyrzoller 11y ago
It would seem to matter not. Have a look at JMs career trajectory following his (first) exit from Amazon. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmccormack https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmccormack Amazon welcomes him back after a two month tour of duty with Yahoo. Six months later he goes to Google. He's got some obvious next steps: Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Snapchat?! Throw in some sentimental stints back at old Amazon, that's a career baby!
sulam 11y ago
It matters to the people you leave, too. When people spend a lot of energy recruiting you, doing due diligence on you and you on them, it (hopefully) builds a fair amount of trust and mutual respect. When you leave after a short time, that trust is violated, often in both directions. Barring something somewhat unusual (cough Clinkle cough), people are generally going to be very transparent with people they hire to help with a turn-around. When you have every opportunity to determine whether or not you're up for a challenge and then 3 months later are like "nah, actually, too hard" it will probably have some effect, at least with people that were closely involved in your hiring.
- nedwin 11y ago
  I've also seen where people come into a role being promised autonomy and once they start finding that they're stuck into a pre-existing strategy or hierarchy that doesn't want to change.
  - ska 11y ago
    Trust has already been broken there. If the job is a bait and switch, why would you expect someone to stay if they have other options?
- sheepmullet 11y ago
  > people are generally going to be very transparent with people they hire to help with a turn-around. Really? I've never had an interview where I've been told the team has constant high pressure arbitrary deadlines, a culture of micromanagement, a lack of autonomy, no career progression, low skilled colleagues, etc. Yet these kind of companies are the majority.
- ufmace 11y ago
  I suppose it could seem unprofessional to the company you're leaving, depending on your perspective on things. But unless you're in a very tight-knit community, exactly what your previous company thinks of you usually has no relevance to your future employment options - specifically because it's a matter of perspective whether the departure was justified or not, and whether you'd be likely to leave the new company. If your field really is that tight-knit, then you'll have to use your best judgement. If the employer you're leaving really is that bad, then you have to trust that everyone knows it, and nobody will blame you for leaving them. They might more wonder why you hadn't heard about how they really were ahead of time. Or if you actually are uncooperative, unprofessional, or otherwise unproductive, expect that to get around too.
p4wnc6 11y ago
I have two quick departures (4 months and 5 months respectively) on my resume and it has caused me a lot of problems. In both cases, the companies that I joined pulled unbelievable bait-and-switches on me, and my job was essentially unrelated to the job they described during the hiring process. I tried to stick it out in each case, and I even received excellent performance reviews during both short stints, but the burnout and the effect on my mental health of suffering through such egregious bait-and-switch situations was too much and in both cases I couldn't sustain working any longer and so I quit. I want to find a place to work for a long time, but the quality of software work these days is laughably poor. There are so many ways a job can be bad -- not just normal bad, where you grind it out for 40 hours (I've done plenty of that too and lasted long stints at previous employers), but really, seriously soul-crushingly bad -- that it has made me considerably more paranoid about the motivations and red flags that employers reveal during interviews and hiring. In general though, most people are willing to at least ask me to explain my unusual resume, and any time my technical skills are evaluated early on, they can see that I know what I am talking about and it goes OK after that. I'm not sure what lessons this has taught me. Everyone says not to quit a bad job until you know for sure that you have another job lined up. But even though I've quit two jobs in a row and had to live through very hard circumstances and very long, demoralizing spells of unemployment, I still don't actually think my overall life would have been better if I had continued to allow myself to be so egregiously mistreated in those past jobs. I still think the awful grinding-out-the-unemployment stuff has been at least an order of magnitude better than enduring mistreatment, even though it hasn't been good.

JSeymourATL 11y ago

> how long should one try to make a new job work? Depends on your mandate going in. Stick-to-itivness is a desirable leadership quality. Most industries consider business cycles in annual terms. If you can't move the needle in 24-36 months, do everyone a favor and move-on. A 3 week stint however, is not worth putting on your CV.

biot 11y ago
> Stick-to-itivness Tenacity.
- sirkneeland 11y ago
  vocabularity
- squeaky-clean 11y ago
  "Stick-to-itivness" is a perfectly cromulent word.
  - JSeymourATL 11y ago
    Yes Professor Smith, and Thank You!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- talaketu 11y ago
  Resilience

ChuckMcM 11y ago

When I'm interviewing someone who bounced from a job I ask them about it. A lot depends on their answer. Everyone has different levels of introspection and self awareness. Experiencing a job where, after a very short while you left that job[1], means that something reasonably powerful didn't work out. How the candidate deals with that speaks to their ability to understand themselves and the situations they are in. Bottom line, it could encourage me to hire someone or not hire someone, just like any other bit of experience in their background. Just in this case its more about them and less about what they did in that previous role. [1] and the company is still in business, and it didn't announce it killed the division you joined just as you joined Etc.

HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago

how long should one try to make a new job work? This question really speaks to me right now! One of the major reasons I was hired into my current job of less than two months is that I have lot of experience working in a very process-heavy environment and I'm tasked with developing appropriate processes for the pretty chaotic company I'm with now. While I'm sure I can turn them around, there are challenges coming from every direction. The situation is somewhat worse than I expected and I need to have a frank talk with the owner about what timeframe he expects to see a significant move of the needle. I've made a few minor improvements in the 6 weeks I've been here, but people's attitudes are going to be the hardest to change. I give it a year.

chiph 11y ago

If you're out of there in less than 2 weeks, I would just leave it off the resume entirely.

x0x0 11y ago

I'd say it depends on why. My personal experience is a cto totally lied about a job. I was hired to do ml and ended up being a generic backend dev; nothing I worked on required any ml knowledge. I quit after 8 weeks. Oddly enough, the cto -- an early google engineer too -- was very butthurt. He told me I was childish for expecting the job description to match the job; I told him he was a liar and that was the end of that working relationship. I definitely wouldn't be bothered by someone saying "it wasn't a fit" for a job that lasted under 3 months. In fact, I'd probably think less of you for hanging around in a bad situation for 8 months rather than just saying this isn't working and bailing fast. When I hire, if it isn't working, and we can't make it work, ending the situation quickly rather than dragging things out makes the best of a crummy situation.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
I used to work for a guy who would advertise a ML/data science job and then tried to convince applicants who made it thru the pipe to take a software engineering role instead. Didn't get a lot of hires that way.
- x0x0 11y ago
  weird, eh? Must be an Engineering Shortage!
gaius 11y ago
He told me I was childish for expecting the job description to match the job Seems like he should have been head of marketing, not technology.

discardorama 11y ago

Nothing beats 24 hours: (ironically, an ex-Yahoo): http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a-clinkle-executive-quit-after-24-hours-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a-clinkle-executive-quit-...