I agree wholeheartedly. I've run into this in interviews after short stints and most places will allow you to explain without being accusatory up front. If they

I agree wholeheartedly. I've run into this in interviews after short stints and most places will allow you to explain without being accusatory up front. If they are, that's generally a red flag for me. I will often explain to recruiters/interviewers that an interview is mutually beneficial and if what is told to me in an interview is not true, or intentionally hidden from me, and the reality of the work situation does not align with my beliefs/expectations/morals/etc after asking a number of people about those things then why should there be any expectation for me stay to meet some hypothetical minimum on amount of time in a role? If I couldn't perform my role within 90 days they'd let me go. Why is the double standard OK? I've been in trainwrecks where the market really wanted things the company wasn't delivering on as paid for product. And it could have been really great. Great brand recognition, great people - yet a CEO that had in their mind they could do no wrong. I left, and received a lot of flack for it, yet within one year that company divested because they couldn't sell anything then magically I was looked at differently. It's often hard to get a good read on a tech company in a few short interviews. Especially those on the smaller side or startups. But I don't think anyone should stay somewhere that was not as advertised and have to deal with a penalty for a "short run". Being candid about the situation without disparaging the company (as the parent comment stated) seems to go a long way and most good recruiters/interviews will be understanding.