Do I take what's behind door #2?
July 11, 2008 6:12 PM Subscribe
Should I stay a consultant or go with the cool in-house gig with a commute?
I'm completely torn between two jobs. Help me choose, please.
Pardon the lots of detail. Trying to do the best to avoid follow-up.
Current gig:
I've been here a total of almost 6 years, but left for another gig (that I hated) and returned just 10 months ago. (So going to another gig, quickly hating it and going somewhere else or returning isn't really an option.)
I love my immediate team. I don't work with them every day though. When it comes to the larger company, I find myself very frustrated by the disorganization, politics, egomania, being thrown under the bus.
I'm decently paid, very respected and in high demand - which strokes my ego but also makes me exhausted. I find people competing for my time and attention, bogged down in meetings and having to struggle to accomplish tasks – for which my clients pay big money for.
I've reached a ceiling as far as promotions and learning here and raises, well, we're owned by a huge company so those don't really exist.
My boss is nice and smart, but not a good manager. I would feel guilty abandoning him, but he's one of the few. I have a lot of flexibility here timewise, but there are also a lot of demands on outside time - late nights, unexpected travel, etc. My commute is short and public transport based.
It's an incredibly respected firm, but it's already on the resume. I'm really good at what I do. It is as fun as it is frustrating. It sucks me dry creatively, however.
Except I've got a client that likes me. Really likes me.
That's behind what's door number 2.
It's a lateral move titlewise, but has a direct opportunity for growth into a bigger role when I want it and into a broader opportunity to learn new skillsets within my job function.
I like what they make - a lot. I'd be a fan even if they weren't a client. They seem a bit stressed, but well intentioned and they appreciate good ideas. They're fixing what's broken and I'd have an opportunity to weigh in on the breaks and the fixes. I would be incredibly empowered - to change things, to hire, to fire and to put training in place.
The people are good - and more geeky than the current job, which is a plus in my book. They're international, so they'll be travel, not as much as being a consultant, but their travel is further, longer.
They're offering me a lot of money - but not an obscene amount compared to what they're paying for my work as a consultant.
The kicker, though, is the commute. It would add an hour each way to my day, but still via public transportation. They've offered me time flexibility and the ability to work from home one or two days a week.
About me:
I always work too hard wherever I go.
As sick as it is to say, I've got enough money (I'm not rich, but I'm happy living simply).
I have a family and they take priority over other considerations, but the idea of two hours to concentrate each day sounds really good to me (I've done it before and I hated missing the time with the family, but I loved the me time).
How the heck do I choose? Which would you go for in my shoes?
I'm completely torn between two jobs. Help me choose, please.
Pardon the lots of detail. Trying to do the best to avoid follow-up.
Current gig:
I've been here a total of almost 6 years, but left for another gig (that I hated) and returned just 10 months ago. (So going to another gig, quickly hating it and going somewhere else or returning isn't really an option.)
I love my immediate team. I don't work with them every day though. When it comes to the larger company, I find myself very frustrated by the disorganization, politics, egomania, being thrown under the bus.
I'm decently paid, very respected and in high demand - which strokes my ego but also makes me exhausted. I find people competing for my time and attention, bogged down in meetings and having to struggle to accomplish tasks – for which my clients pay big money for.
I've reached a ceiling as far as promotions and learning here and raises, well, we're owned by a huge company so those don't really exist.
My boss is nice and smart, but not a good manager. I would feel guilty abandoning him, but he's one of the few. I have a lot of flexibility here timewise, but there are also a lot of demands on outside time - late nights, unexpected travel, etc. My commute is short and public transport based.
It's an incredibly respected firm, but it's already on the resume. I'm really good at what I do. It is as fun as it is frustrating. It sucks me dry creatively, however.
Except I've got a client that likes me. Really likes me.
That's behind what's door number 2.
It's a lateral move titlewise, but has a direct opportunity for growth into a bigger role when I want it and into a broader opportunity to learn new skillsets within my job function.
I like what they make - a lot. I'd be a fan even if they weren't a client. They seem a bit stressed, but well intentioned and they appreciate good ideas. They're fixing what's broken and I'd have an opportunity to weigh in on the breaks and the fixes. I would be incredibly empowered - to change things, to hire, to fire and to put training in place.
The people are good - and more geeky than the current job, which is a plus in my book. They're international, so they'll be travel, not as much as being a consultant, but their travel is further, longer.
They're offering me a lot of money - but not an obscene amount compared to what they're paying for my work as a consultant.
The kicker, though, is the commute. It would add an hour each way to my day, but still via public transportation. They've offered me time flexibility and the ability to work from home one or two days a week.
About me:
I always work too hard wherever I go.
As sick as it is to say, I've got enough money (I'm not rich, but I'm happy living simply).
I have a family and they take priority over other considerations, but the idea of two hours to concentrate each day sounds really good to me (I've done it before and I hated missing the time with the family, but I loved the me time).
How the heck do I choose? Which would you go for in my shoes?
Well, looking at how you described them, and assuming your biases are built-in:
It looks like the only downside to the latter one is its commute, which is at least partially mitigated by a flex-time and the ability to work from home a day or two a week. If you think you can bear that, it definitely sounds like you'd enjoy it a lot more.
posted by Tomorrowful at 6:34 PM on July 11, 2008
It looks like the only downside to the latter one is its commute, which is at least partially mitigated by a flex-time and the ability to work from home a day or two a week. If you think you can bear that, it definitely sounds like you'd enjoy it a lot more.
posted by Tomorrowful at 6:34 PM on July 11, 2008
From your description, the second job sounds better. In fact, by the way you wrote it, I think you think it sounds better. The job sounds more interesting with better responsibility and less bureaucracy.
When they offer to let you work from home "one or two" days a week, that means two. This means you'll really only be commuting a total of 6 hours per week, which isn't too bad. You might even convince them to let you work seven hour days on the days you're in the office, with the understanding that you'll put in the extra hour on transit or at home.
As far as family time goes, are the outside demands on the new job more predictable? Are you going to be able to resist putting in 9-10 hours, five days per week in the office, in addition to the extra two hours of commute time per day?
posted by cnc at 6:41 PM on July 11, 2008
When they offer to let you work from home "one or two" days a week, that means two. This means you'll really only be commuting a total of 6 hours per week, which isn't too bad. You might even convince them to let you work seven hour days on the days you're in the office, with the understanding that you'll put in the extra hour on transit or at home.
As far as family time goes, are the outside demands on the new job more predictable? Are you going to be able to resist putting in 9-10 hours, five days per week in the office, in addition to the extra two hours of commute time per day?
posted by cnc at 6:41 PM on July 11, 2008
As cnc says, you sound like you're leaning towards the second salaried job. Also, you sound like you went back to the first company because it was a tried and trusted place in your comfort zone.
If it were me, take the second job as it has potential for future growth. Balance it out against the change in your routine, but the first job obviously isn't going to work in the long term as you sound frustrated.
posted by arcticseal at 7:15 PM on July 11, 2008
If it were me, take the second job as it has potential for future growth. Balance it out against the change in your routine, but the first job obviously isn't going to work in the long term as you sound frustrated.
posted by arcticseal at 7:15 PM on July 11, 2008
About me: staff consultant (i.e., someone paid a salary by a company that sells consulting, which is how I'm reading the OP's current situation), once co-owned a consulting company.
First off, make absolutely sure the client can hire you. Even if you don't have a non-compete agreement with your employer, most consulting agreements include no-poaching clauses that would make it expensive or impossible for the client to hire the consultant directly. (Think about it -- otherwise, clients would try to recruit every good consultant to cut costs.) The people at client companies who have tried to recruit me have either not had access to the agreement or have not bothered to read it. I have known people who quit staff jobs only to have their client-company job disappear when someone reads the contract (perhaps at the prodding of the consulting company); that's not a fun situation.
Secondly, the client-company job description sounds too good to be true. For all the talk of being empowered, you won't be able to singlehandedly change anything. Someone is defending the broken status quo, and a new hire -- regardless of what was promised -- is unlikely to have the clout needed to bring about change. Be particularly wary if the company wants you to implement the advice you've already given it; if the staff can ignore an expensive external consultant, they can definitely ignore another staffer.
Thirdly, if you don't burn any bridges, your current company will very likely take you back again. Good consultants are hard to find, particularly those willing to work for a large company that caps compensation. Of course, going to work for a client would be considered the ultimate bridge-torching in many shops.
To sum up, be very careful. The allure of being desired has messed up a lot of consulting careers (among others things).
posted by backupjesus at 5:53 AM on July 12, 2008
First off, make absolutely sure the client can hire you. Even if you don't have a non-compete agreement with your employer, most consulting agreements include no-poaching clauses that would make it expensive or impossible for the client to hire the consultant directly. (Think about it -- otherwise, clients would try to recruit every good consultant to cut costs.) The people at client companies who have tried to recruit me have either not had access to the agreement or have not bothered to read it. I have known people who quit staff jobs only to have their client-company job disappear when someone reads the contract (perhaps at the prodding of the consulting company); that's not a fun situation.
Secondly, the client-company job description sounds too good to be true. For all the talk of being empowered, you won't be able to singlehandedly change anything. Someone is defending the broken status quo, and a new hire -- regardless of what was promised -- is unlikely to have the clout needed to bring about change. Be particularly wary if the company wants you to implement the advice you've already given it; if the staff can ignore an expensive external consultant, they can definitely ignore another staffer.
Thirdly, if you don't burn any bridges, your current company will very likely take you back again. Good consultants are hard to find, particularly those willing to work for a large company that caps compensation. Of course, going to work for a client would be considered the ultimate bridge-torching in many shops.
To sum up, be very careful. The allure of being desired has messed up a lot of consulting careers (among others things).
posted by backupjesus at 5:53 AM on July 12, 2008
« Older Diabetes, you are not invited to my pizza party | Best (fastest, simplest) MAC-capable software for... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Having a regular job is better than consulting for a number of reasons, not least of which is health coverage and company-paid life insurance.
posted by Class Goat at 6:21 PM on July 11, 2008