Which job should I pick?
October 22, 2009 8:49 AM Subscribe
Which job should I pick? I'm in the happy position of being able to choose between two jobs. I'll get two offers by the end of the week, and I need help deciding.
Job One: A lauded, beloved product with international reach that is well-known for advances in my field. I love and use the product every day, and have always wanted to work for this company, so it's a bit of a dream come true.
On the downside, it's also a somewhat competitive environment--a lot of the people there are top-notch and thus very confident--where I'll have to fight to put my ideas into place, something I'm not always so great about doing. I'm worried about this, since I'm tired of fighting about implementation; it's why I'm leaving my current job, in fact.
I'm worried about this so much I've gotten very nervous about working at this company. They seem generally enthusiastic to have me on board, but they don't seem to be eagerly awaiting my input. (The team I'm working on is about five people, so I'll just be another addition.)
The job is also a contract job (a plus, I think), and full-time for one year. It also pays a LOT of money.
It will also be a huge career boost because the product is so recognizable.
---------------------
Job Two: A small up-and-coming but well-respected company that's making a lot of progress in its field. The cofounders are looking to have me revitalize the product, and I've already done brainstorming during the interview process, and got some very enthusiastic feedback. It's clear I'll have a lot of freedom to make the product better, which is very important to me. It's also a product that I find very interesting.
I'll be the lone person doing what I do, which I find very appealing--it means I can shape the team as the company grows.
The job is full-time, and pays substantially more than my current job (but not more than Job One). When folks learn I work there, they'll probably be enthusiastic, but the company is by no means internationally known.
----------------------
If I hadn't gotten the offer from Job One, I'd be very happy to accept Job Two. But I've been working at mid-level companies most of my career; accepting Job One would most likely assure I could work wherever I wanted to later.
In theory, most of my career thus far has been leading up to getting a job like Job One. On the other hand, Job Two both pays well and should be interesting.
----------------------
What does everyone think? I'm looking for answers, though anecdotes would be nice, too.
Job One: A lauded, beloved product with international reach that is well-known for advances in my field. I love and use the product every day, and have always wanted to work for this company, so it's a bit of a dream come true.
On the downside, it's also a somewhat competitive environment--a lot of the people there are top-notch and thus very confident--where I'll have to fight to put my ideas into place, something I'm not always so great about doing. I'm worried about this, since I'm tired of fighting about implementation; it's why I'm leaving my current job, in fact.
I'm worried about this so much I've gotten very nervous about working at this company. They seem generally enthusiastic to have me on board, but they don't seem to be eagerly awaiting my input. (The team I'm working on is about five people, so I'll just be another addition.)
The job is also a contract job (a plus, I think), and full-time for one year. It also pays a LOT of money.
It will also be a huge career boost because the product is so recognizable.
---------------------
Job Two: A small up-and-coming but well-respected company that's making a lot of progress in its field. The cofounders are looking to have me revitalize the product, and I've already done brainstorming during the interview process, and got some very enthusiastic feedback. It's clear I'll have a lot of freedom to make the product better, which is very important to me. It's also a product that I find very interesting.
I'll be the lone person doing what I do, which I find very appealing--it means I can shape the team as the company grows.
The job is full-time, and pays substantially more than my current job (but not more than Job One). When folks learn I work there, they'll probably be enthusiastic, but the company is by no means internationally known.
----------------------
If I hadn't gotten the offer from Job One, I'd be very happy to accept Job Two. But I've been working at mid-level companies most of my career; accepting Job One would most likely assure I could work wherever I wanted to later.
In theory, most of my career thus far has been leading up to getting a job like Job One. On the other hand, Job Two both pays well and should be interesting.
----------------------
What does everyone think? I'm looking for answers, though anecdotes would be nice, too.
Job Two has a lot more potential. Consider what the "experience" portion of each job is going to look like on your resume. It sounds like Two is going to leave you aligned for future leadership positions, and One is going to put you in a position to be on another team. Maybe as a lead, or a Senior, but being in charge is questionable.
I think Two sounds better, but that may depend on where you want to go from here and in which way you want to be challenged.
posted by Lyn Never at 9:05 AM on October 22, 2009
I think Two sounds better, but that may depend on where you want to go from here and in which way you want to be challenged.
posted by Lyn Never at 9:05 AM on October 22, 2009
For what it's worth, your question reads to me as if you really want to turn down the higher-paying Job One and take the more interesting Job Two... but you aren't sure that is the right decision, and you're looking for support or endorsement.
That's just what I get from your between-the-lines tone. If you know deep inside that that is true, then you have to take Job Two. The fact that you used to aspire to Job One doesn't mean that you must now take it, especially if you have changed as a person.
If you're certain I'm wrong, though, and that's definitely not how you really feel... then I am useless here, and all I can say is: sounds like both are good jobs, so even if you pick the "wrong" one, you won't be a loser.
posted by rokusan at 9:06 AM on October 22, 2009 [5 favorites]
That's just what I get from your between-the-lines tone. If you know deep inside that that is true, then you have to take Job Two. The fact that you used to aspire to Job One doesn't mean that you must now take it, especially if you have changed as a person.
If you're certain I'm wrong, though, and that's definitely not how you really feel... then I am useless here, and all I can say is: sounds like both are good jobs, so even if you pick the "wrong" one, you won't be a loser.
posted by rokusan at 9:06 AM on October 22, 2009 [5 favorites]
Go for Job Two. The way you described it makes it seem like you are more into it.
posted by mustcatchmooseandsquirrel at 9:13 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by mustcatchmooseandsquirrel at 9:13 AM on October 22, 2009
It reads to me as well like you feel you ought to want Job 1 much more but that you don't, and are worried that this is somehow wrong of you. It isn't. Choose job 2.
posted by jeather at 9:21 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by jeather at 9:21 AM on October 22, 2009
You sound more enthusiastic about the JOB at job 2 and more enthusiastic about the COMPANY for Job 1. Take job 2 and in a few years if you still want to work at Company 1 you can probably get a job there that is a better fit for you after your Job 2 experience (being able to quantify that you independently improved a product looks better on your resume than "team player").
posted by saucysault at 9:28 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by saucysault at 9:28 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dude, come on, go with Google. Especially with the 1-year contract aspect. Next year you'll be able to get a job at company 2 managing the guy they hire instead of you.
posted by Perplexity at 9:32 AM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Perplexity at 9:32 AM on October 22, 2009 [3 favorites]
What exactly are you being asked to do at Job One? You mention that Job Two is product development (which OK, still not something I'm totally clear on, but at least it's an activity).
posted by kittyprecious at 9:32 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by kittyprecious at 9:32 AM on October 22, 2009
I've always been able to make this sort of decision by asking myself which position will teach me more. It's likely that they'll each teach you different things, so you may want to construct a list for each one. I've never gone wrong when I've prioritized the opportunity to learn over extra money.
posted by centerweight at 9:36 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by centerweight at 9:36 AM on October 22, 2009
Job Two.
posted by spaltavian at 9:37 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by spaltavian at 9:37 AM on October 22, 2009
One of the early Netscape folks (JWZ maybe) once described people in the work world as breaking down into two broad camp. People that want to work to make a company successful, and people that want to work for a successful company. His theory was that as Netscape hired more and more of the latter, the company faltered.
Which camp are you in? This seems like a perfect example of that.
posted by COD at 9:37 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]
Which camp are you in? This seems like a perfect example of that.
posted by COD at 9:37 AM on October 22, 2009 [4 favorites]
From the way you worded it, here's the summary:
Job 1 = should want
Job 2 = want
If you agree, your decision is clear. It doesn't matter how great a job sounds on paper if it isn't right for you, now.
posted by widdershins at 9:42 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
Job 1 = should want
Job 2 = want
If you agree, your decision is clear. It doesn't matter how great a job sounds on paper if it isn't right for you, now.
posted by widdershins at 9:42 AM on October 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
I agree w/the consensus: Job Two.
That said, you might have different priorities. Let's say it's a year from now - which job do you regret letting go of more? If it were me, I would kick myself in the ass constantly for passing on Job Two. You might feel that way about Job One.
Let us know which one you wind up choosing, and what exactly tipped the balance.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 9:44 AM on October 22, 2009
That said, you might have different priorities. Let's say it's a year from now - which job do you regret letting go of more? If it were me, I would kick myself in the ass constantly for passing on Job Two. You might feel that way about Job One.
Let us know which one you wind up choosing, and what exactly tipped the balance.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 9:44 AM on October 22, 2009
Flip a coin. Your gut reaction to the results will tell you what you need to know. (And, FWIW, letting go of what you think you "should" do can be very helpful.)
posted by runningwithscissors at 9:47 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by runningwithscissors at 9:47 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]
Oh, and congratulations! You're in an enviable position.
posted by runningwithscissors at 9:48 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by runningwithscissors at 9:48 AM on October 22, 2009
I had to make this decision last year. I took Job Two, pretty much for an easy life after a bruising year in another Job One-type contract. I did it for the reasons Lyn Never described, thinking I'd be able to grow into a more senior position, plus it was more money.
I have regretted it pretty much every week since. I don't have anywhere near as much authority or freedom to develop the 'product' as I was led to believe in the interview, and as I'm not that excited by the organisation it makes work incredibly hard going. I feel like I'm going backwards a lot of the time and I'm learning very little other than how to stave off abject boredom. Had I taken Job One, passion for the product and excitement about being there would have carried me through the inevitable frustrations AND looked stellar on my resume AND I'd have been learning more about what it takes to create something truly awesome.
However, I do earn much more than I would have in job A and it got me out of a financial hole so there's one plus, but I'm honestly not sure it's been worth it. It's been a hard lesson to learn but never, ever will I choose the easy life over the chance to be part of something amazing again. I may be projecting, maybe you need the relative steadiness of Job 2 right now, and that's fine, but don't discount how it may feel to have turned down Job One in the future.
posted by freya_lamb at 9:50 AM on October 22, 2009
I have regretted it pretty much every week since. I don't have anywhere near as much authority or freedom to develop the 'product' as I was led to believe in the interview, and as I'm not that excited by the organisation it makes work incredibly hard going. I feel like I'm going backwards a lot of the time and I'm learning very little other than how to stave off abject boredom. Had I taken Job One, passion for the product and excitement about being there would have carried me through the inevitable frustrations AND looked stellar on my resume AND I'd have been learning more about what it takes to create something truly awesome.
However, I do earn much more than I would have in job A and it got me out of a financial hole so there's one plus, but I'm honestly not sure it's been worth it. It's been a hard lesson to learn but never, ever will I choose the easy life over the chance to be part of something amazing again. I may be projecting, maybe you need the relative steadiness of Job 2 right now, and that's fine, but don't discount how it may feel to have turned down Job One in the future.
posted by freya_lamb at 9:50 AM on October 22, 2009
Widdershins just boiled my longwinded ramble down to three words. Endorsed!
posted by rokusan at 9:53 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by rokusan at 9:53 AM on October 22, 2009
I have coached many people through the dilemma you are working through. I would ask you to take stock of your strengths and values. If you don't know your strengths, go to and take the via strengths inventory test. For real satisfaction (which is an unquantifiable money can't match) I would suggest you take the job that meets most or all of your top five strengths. From what you say, there is more money and status attached to the first job but more value for you in the second without the drawbacks. If you do opt to go for the first job, you can retain a coach that will help you hold your own in the competitive environment (not a bad idea anyways).
By the way, you don't need to be in this dilemma to discover your strengths! Everyone I've sent there is pretty amazed by the results.
posted by bfoster at 10:17 AM on October 22, 2009
By the way, you don't need to be in this dilemma to discover your strengths! Everyone I've sent there is pretty amazed by the results.
posted by bfoster at 10:17 AM on October 22, 2009
Job Two. IF it were me, and its not, I would not even waste time thinking about becoming just another cog. I would want creative freedom.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:23 AM on October 22, 2009
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:23 AM on October 22, 2009
I'm going to go against the consensus here and say take Job One.
You're really not selling out in any way if you take a job at a company that makes a great product that's going to look good on your resume. Competitive environments with driven people are good at making you learn things very quickly; I think you'll find that just the peers you can interact with will make this job worthwhile. The way I see it, you might well be overestimating the amount of creative freedom you'll have at Job Two, but at Job One, you'll be keeping your options open and exposing yourself to an environment where there are many opportunities. At the start of your career I feel that's it's better to be a small fish in a big pond.
posted by peacheater at 10:31 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]
You're really not selling out in any way if you take a job at a company that makes a great product that's going to look good on your resume. Competitive environments with driven people are good at making you learn things very quickly; I think you'll find that just the peers you can interact with will make this job worthwhile. The way I see it, you might well be overestimating the amount of creative freedom you'll have at Job Two, but at Job One, you'll be keeping your options open and exposing yourself to an environment where there are many opportunities. At the start of your career I feel that's it's better to be a small fish in a big pond.
posted by peacheater at 10:31 AM on October 22, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm with peacheater here: the competitive environment and the fact that you'll be joining an established team means you'll have plenty to learn from others and will constantly be putting pressure on yourself to measure up. And if you find that your opinions are truly not being taken seriously even after a year of performing, having a much more recognizable company and product leaves you with a much larger network and way more exit opportunities (and if you choose to exit, job 2 will probably value you even more after your stint at job 1).
Don't fear a competitive environment--I made that decision to choose the "easier" of two jobs two years ago and have been regretting it every day since.
You said you're not great at it, so take job one as a great learning opportunity in "fighting to put your ideas into place."
posted by chalbe at 10:52 AM on October 22, 2009
Don't fear a competitive environment--I made that decision to choose the "easier" of two jobs two years ago and have been regretting it every day since.
You said you're not great at it, so take job one as a great learning opportunity in "fighting to put your ideas into place."
posted by chalbe at 10:52 AM on October 22, 2009
Many ex-consultants will say the "{Big Firm} is a great place to be from." Meaning it's no fun being there, but for the rest of your career you'll have a foot in the door because McKinsey or Bain or BCG is on your resume. There similar companies in other industries Bechtel for engineering or P&G for marketing.
Personally, my gig in consulting continues to pay off years later in both salary and opportunity. Is job one the type of job that will pay off for the remainder of your career? Are you willing to make the trade off for a year?
posted by 26.2 at 10:56 AM on October 22, 2009
Personally, my gig in consulting continues to pay off years later in both salary and opportunity. Is job one the type of job that will pay off for the remainder of your career? Are you willing to make the trade off for a year?
posted by 26.2 at 10:56 AM on October 22, 2009
First, I want to address your concern about being in such a competitive environment. This may be an excellent opportunity for you to strengthen your "Go, get 'em, Tiger" skills. Business is incredibly competitive, and since it sounds like you are involved with product development and innovation, that's a particularly strong element of being successful. I know you said you are tired of fighting for implementation, but there are different types of competitive environments. For example, some people examine ideas through debate rather than an argument, and the goal isn't winning but finding the best answer. What I'm saying is, competition at your current employer is an uphill struggle, but at Job One it could be more of a collaborative, intellectually stimulating thing. It's something to consider.
I think the value of having Job One on your resume is worth a one year commitment, and it will better position you to have several Job Two-like offers in the future, probably with a bit more pay. I would also hesitate to turn down Job One because Big Cheeses don't like being turned down, so you reduce your chances of ever working at Job One's company. I'm not saying they will spend a lot of time being upset or anything, just that it would make it that much harder for you to secure a job offer with them in the future, unless you created something that blew all the competition away. Conversely, the cache of Job One is so high that Job Two would probably not hold it against you, if there were other opportunities you would apply for in the future.
Ultimately, you need to go with your gut, and what you think will bring you the most amount of happiest and the least amount of regrets. Obviously, I'm voting for Job One, but Job Two could easily be the place for you instead. Congratulations and best of luck!
posted by katemcd at 11:11 AM on October 22, 2009
I think the value of having Job One on your resume is worth a one year commitment, and it will better position you to have several Job Two-like offers in the future, probably with a bit more pay. I would also hesitate to turn down Job One because Big Cheeses don't like being turned down, so you reduce your chances of ever working at Job One's company. I'm not saying they will spend a lot of time being upset or anything, just that it would make it that much harder for you to secure a job offer with them in the future, unless you created something that blew all the competition away. Conversely, the cache of Job One is so high that Job Two would probably not hold it against you, if there were other opportunities you would apply for in the future.
Ultimately, you need to go with your gut, and what you think will bring you the most amount of happiest and the least amount of regrets. Obviously, I'm voting for Job One, but Job Two could easily be the place for you instead. Congratulations and best of luck!
posted by katemcd at 11:11 AM on October 22, 2009
I say Job 1.
There is only one company like Company 1. There will be more startups/midsize companies to grow with post-Job 1 that will love that you swam with the big fish, because that is exactly what they want to do.
Also, you are limited to one year at Job 1. So even if you hate it, you will have a predetermined date at which you'll go with no hard feelings. If you love it, you'll be motivated to get the next contract at Company 1. Plus, you will have gotten past your fears. Plus, maybe you'll learn not to "fight" for your implementation ideas, but rather learn from others who might actually know better than you how to go about things. I don't mean to make that sound insulting, but really if Job 1 can attract higher-caliber employees than an environment that might have been stifling before ("I have great ideas and no-one listens") can be much better ("I don't have to come up with all the ideas on my own because I'm surrounded by excellence and I can learn from those around me instead of try to wrest control from comparative imbeciles! Whee!").
Also, you'll meet people at Company 1 that will help you and will doubtless make good connections themselves, and might even start their own companies down the road.
Finally, you have a convenient excuse in case you decide to leave Job 1 in a year because it's only a one-year engagement. At Job 2, would this be seen as abandoning the company? Would you have decent references if you decided you wanted to leave Job 2? Also, what if you start Job 1 and hate it - do you think you'll be in a good negotiating position to find another job from the position of being a current employee of Job 1? Can the same be said for Job 2? You can't know a lot of what's going to make you happy or miserable going in, so I think a lot of weight should be attached to how mobile you'll be once you're in the new job, whether it's Job 1 or Job 2, just in case you get in and decide "OMG this is NOT what I want!!!".
posted by lorrer at 12:05 PM on October 22, 2009
There is only one company like Company 1. There will be more startups/midsize companies to grow with post-Job 1 that will love that you swam with the big fish, because that is exactly what they want to do.
Also, you are limited to one year at Job 1. So even if you hate it, you will have a predetermined date at which you'll go with no hard feelings. If you love it, you'll be motivated to get the next contract at Company 1. Plus, you will have gotten past your fears. Plus, maybe you'll learn not to "fight" for your implementation ideas, but rather learn from others who might actually know better than you how to go about things. I don't mean to make that sound insulting, but really if Job 1 can attract higher-caliber employees than an environment that might have been stifling before ("I have great ideas and no-one listens") can be much better ("I don't have to come up with all the ideas on my own because I'm surrounded by excellence and I can learn from those around me instead of try to wrest control from comparative imbeciles! Whee!").
Also, you'll meet people at Company 1 that will help you and will doubtless make good connections themselves, and might even start their own companies down the road.
Finally, you have a convenient excuse in case you decide to leave Job 1 in a year because it's only a one-year engagement. At Job 2, would this be seen as abandoning the company? Would you have decent references if you decided you wanted to leave Job 2? Also, what if you start Job 1 and hate it - do you think you'll be in a good negotiating position to find another job from the position of being a current employee of Job 1? Can the same be said for Job 2? You can't know a lot of what's going to make you happy or miserable going in, so I think a lot of weight should be attached to how mobile you'll be once you're in the new job, whether it's Job 1 or Job 2, just in case you get in and decide "OMG this is NOT what I want!!!".
posted by lorrer at 12:05 PM on October 22, 2009
I agree with runningwithscissors, flip a coin to decide. If you start making it best of three, best of five etc then you know which way you want to go.
Plus, if it all goes pear shaped, you can blame the coin!
posted by Admira at 2:42 PM on October 22, 2009
Plus, if it all goes pear shaped, you can blame the coin!
posted by Admira at 2:42 PM on October 22, 2009
Job 1: like others said, it's only a year, and that lets you exit easily if you don't like it, or maybe renew your contract if you do like it, whereas you might get stuck at job 2 and be unable to leave easily.
But the real reason is that, in my field, the small up-and-coming places that do innovative, exciting work are often hellish to work for. The larger places have their problems too, but one bad apple at a small place will ruin the whole job and create all sorts of trouble, including trouble in getting your ideas into practice, whereas one bad apple at a larger place is more easily diffused and may have better protocol in place to handle it. Of course, my field may well be totally different than yours, but it's worth thinking about.
posted by min at 7:05 PM on October 22, 2009
But the real reason is that, in my field, the small up-and-coming places that do innovative, exciting work are often hellish to work for. The larger places have their problems too, but one bad apple at a small place will ruin the whole job and create all sorts of trouble, including trouble in getting your ideas into practice, whereas one bad apple at a larger place is more easily diffused and may have better protocol in place to handle it. Of course, my field may well be totally different than yours, but it's worth thinking about.
posted by min at 7:05 PM on October 22, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
What I personally would do is think about what it would be like working at each company and then pick the one where I think I'd be happier (on a day to day basis). If you're happy at a place you'll do much better than if you're stressed. Your job also is a large part of how you spend your time, so how you're feeling while doing it is a value of mine.
Good luck and congratulations!
posted by Kimberly at 8:58 AM on October 22, 2009