When should I have Keyboard Cat play me off?

May 27, 2009 10:42 PM

I started a job after taking a year off of work. I've found I don't think I want to stay at it long-term. How soon can I leave without hurting my future employment prospects?

I took a year off from work during which I played around with a few projects, thought about where I wanted to go with my career, did some volunteering, and relaxed. At the end, I concluded that, for my day job, I wanted to work in the same sort of job as before but in a certain industry.

So, I moved across the country to take a job with a company in that industry, taking a roughly 20% pay cut in the process. (It hasn't put me anywhere near the poverty line or anything like that, though.) Well, I've been at this company for two months, and while I don't hate it, I'm fairly certainly that I don't want to be here for a really long time. It doesn't make me feel the way I thought it would, nor is the company as mature as they seemed during the interviews.

I have a long-term plan, but I'm going to have to keep a day job for a few years at the least to make it happen, so I do need a job. I thought about sticking it out here, but now that I know that I can achieve the same levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction at a job that pays a lot more, why should I?

If I hadn't taken that year off, I'd be looking for a new job right now. The thing is, taking a year off, moving across the country to take another job, then leaving that job a short time later understandablly makes me look like a capricious flight risk to a prospective employer. Having stayed at jobs for 4+ years at a time before my break might mitigate the appearance of flakiness some but probably not.

How long do I have to wait at this job to avoid having prospective employers automatically check the "flake" box after looking at my employment history? And when asked about why I left so soon, what's the best way to frame my answer to convince them that I can be counted on to stick around for 1-3 years at a job that's not all rainbows and gumdrops?

posted by anonymous to work & money (8 comments total)

Walk out tomorrow, and don't ever mention your employment there again. It was two months, after a yearlong break. The difference between twelve and fourteen months isn't enough to worry about, and you can tell anyone who asks that you were taking some time off, doing some volunteering, and deciding where you wanted to go with your career.

Otherwise, I'd say your gut is right - at least one year, and probably more like three. That said, the attitude towards careers has already shifted significantly since the eighties and nineties, and will continue to shift away from the model of climbing the corporate ladder. Having a lot of jobs under one's belt is becoming more and more common.
posted by Picklegnome at 11:19 PM on May 27

I'm guessing you are in the US so not sure how much this applies to you- in the UK and other countries a new employer is alerted to the fact that you have been working elsewhere when you start your new job and they get tax info on your past year. If this is the case where you are I'd avoid 'not mentioning it' as hiding a move can be more detrimental and you can lose your job subsequent to being hired when they fing this out. Your country may vary.

Suggested positioning lines...

"I moved across the coast for personal reasons which turned out not to be permament and I'm glad to be back here in X"

"The 2 month period working in X industry? I quickly realised I missed the [challenges of industry Y blah blah blah, where blah is what your interviewer thinks is great about their industry]"

"I have reached a stage where a job I will be enthusistic about and reward me long term is paramount. The two month period was enough to confirm that I am best suited for a role doing [wwhatever it is your being interviewed for].
posted by Gratishades at 1:13 AM on May 28 [1 favorite has favorites]

Yeah, as a recruiter, warning signs for me are if someone has a series of 6 to 9 month roles. That generally gives me a hint that the common factor in their jobs not working out for them is them. Six months is about the time it usually becomes clear that the person you've hired is a fuckwit/can't do the work/can't sell or whatever.

Resign as soon as you can, and don't worry about it. If questioned about it, say you were taking a chance on the company and realised quite quickly that it wasn't what you were looking for after your year off, but hey, Mr/Mrs Recruiter, your company sure is!
posted by Happy Dave at 2:12 AM on May 28 [4 favorites has favorites]

Another vote for leaving immediately.
posted by randomstriker at 5:16 AM on May 28

There are some important questions that you need to answer in order to decide: How necessary is it for you financially to have a job? The job you had in the past that makes more money, is it something you could still get back into given the economy and job shortage? Will they still want you after your leave of absence? Does that job even pay more anymore or have there been salary cuts in the field?

Personally, if I were you, I would start looking for a different job before quitting the current one. The job market a few years ago was a lot different than it is today, and it may not be so easy to get back into the higher-paying role you had before. Not counting your chickens before they've hatched type of thing. But I'm very cautious when it comes to having a steady income (because I have to be), so you may not have to worry about this.
posted by ishotjr at 7:10 AM on May 28

If most of your resume is jobs in 4+ year chunks, I wouldn't worry. One short-term stint isn't a pattern.

However, you can expect questions about the year off, and it'd be best to have a banal, boring answer; and also not to say that you might leave after a year. :)
posted by zompist at 5:58 PM on May 28

follow-up from the OP

Thanks for your insights, everyone. I guess it does make sense to leave this job soon if I'm going to leave. The thing is, if I leave, I still need to stay in the area I just moved to (I am indeed in the US, BTW) for at least 10 months or so. If I don't mention this current job on the resume, how will I explain why I moved to this area now?

And if I do have to put this job on the resume, any advice on how to explain why I'm leaving so soon without criticizing it?

posted by jessamyn at 7:26 AM on May 29

If I don't mention this current job on the resume, how will I explain why I moved to this area now?

None of their business. Maybe you moved to live with a girl. If they ask, just say 'for a relationship'. If they pry further than that, give 'em the cold stare. None of their business.

And if I do have to put this job on the resume, any advice on how to explain why I'm leaving so soon without criticizing it?

There's this odd misconception among jobseekers that you should never, ever say anything negative about a former employer in an interview. You can absolutely be constructively negative, especially if you're framing it in light of your interest in their company. Example:

"I was with Company A for a short period, but I quickly realised that the working style/culture/focus of the work wasn't a good fit for my skills and experience."

*HR Probing Question*

"Well, I'm experienced with X, and I didn't see the opportunity to use that skill with Company A. In fact, it's my X experience and my wish to develop this skill further that led to me applying for the role here".

or

"Well, to be honest I found the micromanagement of a traditionally quite independent role to be quite revealing, it showed me that it was going to be very difficult for me to do the best possible work I could with them, largely because the relative lack of technical skills among middle management at Company A meant that we were being managed by good people managers who didn't really understand or know how to manage our work effectively".



Here's the thing - any company worth working for has either a) the line manager/team leader who needs the person conducting or in the interview, or b) HR people who have a really good understanding of the business and its challenges (this second is significantly more rare). In either case, they're asking themselves two things - can this person do the job, and would I want to work with them.

And believe me, nine times out of ten I'd hire the candidate who can thoughtfully construct a critical review of the issues they faced at a previous employer, over the candidate who gives me some bromide about 'seeking new opportunities'. Working with people is not all sunshine and lollipops, and it's the people who can discuss things openly and clearly that make good colleagues.
posted by Happy Dave at 7:43 AM on May 29