Should You Quit Your Day Job?

I received a call last week from a former co-worker. He wanted to know if he should take a big offer from a company even though it involved a cross-country relocation. I asked him if he thought the job was a worthy move, putting the compensation and location aside. He was unsure. I then suggested he consider the move from these four perspectives:

1. Time is your most valuable asset. Use it wisely.
2. There could be more risk in staying put.
3. You’ll be a stronger, more confident person if you’re successful.
4. Labor churn is good for the economy.

Whether you’re fully-employed, underemployed or not employed at all, these are universal themes that should be part of every person’s ongoing career evaluation process. A story from long ago will help frame this reasoning.

Two days after getting promoted into my first management position as financial planning manager for Rockwell International’s automotive group in Troy, MI, I was assigned to their MBA corporate recruiting team. A day later I was on campus at the University of Michigan competing with Ford, IBM, and Procter & Gamble for their best and brightest. Even though truck axles and transmissions weren’t very sexy, we won the day with something better – superior career moves.

The advice presented on that cold November day many years ago is still valid today. It’s summarized in the graphic.

The dark blue line represents the growth and learning curve of a person taking on a new role. If the job is a good one, there is significant learning and high satisfaction when just starting out. This is represented by the steep part of the curve on the left - Zone 1. If the job doesn’t change much, growth and learning flattens, often at the cost of job satisfaction. This is represented by Zone 2 and the early part of Zone 3. Zone 4 represents declining job satisfaction, attributed to limited growth and learning.

It doesn’t take much persuasion to convince a person to actively look for a new job if they're in Zone 3 or Zone 4. A strong case can even be made to actively look for something better for those in Zone 2 and the latter stages of Zone 1, especially if the future looks flat. Let's go back on campus at the University of Michigan to explain.

The recruiting point made to the MBA students was that they were unlikely to get a promotion at Ford, IBM or P&G until the end of Zone 2, typically 2-3 years after starting. At Rockwell Automotive it was likely to be somewhere at the end of Zone 1, within 12-18 months. We then proved it. I got my first promotion 12 months after starting as a financial analyst. My boss was a VP, and had three promotions in three years. He was only 28. This was all it took to demonstrate, at least from a career growth standpoint, that there was no comparison between a Rockwell offer and the "hotter" competition.

Time is Your Most Valuable Career Asset. Don't Waste It.

In terms of career growth, you want to spend as much time as possible in Zone 1. Here a person can get 2-3 years of experience in one year. Zone 2 is safe, but only temporarily. Before you know it, you could wind up in Zone 3. The problem with Zone 3 is that people cling to these jobs for the sake of security, and then, when things become desperate, take other jobs for all of the wrong reasons.

At this point in the explanation, my former co-worker realized he was treading water in Zone 2, and sensed that Zone 3 was rapidly approaching. This was when it was clear the offer in hand made great long- and short-term career sense. There was no downside risk. In fact, there was more risk for him in staying put.

When you're in Zone 2, as comfortable as it may be, the risk of staying needs to be compared to the risk of leaving. Consider the point that not becoming consistently better risks your future. With the economy stabilizing, the risk in switching jobs now is much lower than it was 2-3 years ago. In addition, since there's no short-term pressure to change jobs, you’ll be more discriminating and in a stronger bargaining position if a Zone 1 career opportunity comes along.

Playing it safe and not taking chances to stretch yourself means that in 2-3 years you’ll be exactly the same person as you are today. This sends a signal to recruiters and hiring managers that you have plateaued. People who change jobs for the right reasons – becoming better – tend to be stronger, more confident, willing to challenge the status quo, and take on new projects with limited experience. This is what building confidence and becoming a leader is all about. It happens by taking reasonable risks, not by avoiding them.

The Hire Economics of Quitting

In a recent Hire Economics post, I pointed out that voluntary turnover in the U.S., i.e., the quit rate, is now far below historical norms. A stagnating workforce stagnates the economy. Unfortunately, people in secure jobs are still reluctant to take reasonable risks. This would not be the case in a normal recovery. Lack of job turnover is bad for the economy and bad for those people trying to get out of Zone 3 and 4 jobs into better ones. To break the employment logjam, people in Zone 2 need to aggressively pursue better Zone 1 jobs, opening up better downstream jobs for everyone else. While trickle-down economics might not work in the macro world, it seems to have some merit where it might actually matter – getting the economy moving again, one job change at a time.

__________________________________________

Lou Adler (@LouA) is the CEO of The Adler Group, a consulting firm helping companies implement Performance-based Hiring. His latest book, The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired (Workbench, 2013), covers the performance-based process described in this article in more depth. For more hiring advice join Lou's LinkedIn group and follow his Wisdom About Work series on Facebook.