Why are you biting the dust expressing exit statement?

It constantly amazes me that the most obvious questions in a job interview or a networking conversation cause the biggest problems. We have 100% certainty that we will be asked about it; we can be 100% certain that we have to tell the world and yet, the reaction is almost always the same. A question comes up, and our eyes are turning somewhere to the ceiling (which means "Oh no, what to say, think, think, think!") and we start off with some incoherent, almost ad-hoc story. A story that begs to start digging, asking for explanation, inquiring, poking a bear on and on, deeper and deeper... And this is the last thing you want. You prefer to talk about your successes and advantages, and your time is taken up by something completely different, embarrassing even; which is of course completely avoidable. We are the cause of our own embarrassment; more specifically, our intellectual laziness and lack of preparation.

One of these dreadful questions is as surprising as: "What were the reasons for leaving your previous company?" This applies, of course, to all of our former jobs, but this last one we left is still quite hot and packed with emotions. Thus, we have the biggest problem here. Especially if we are now out of work, trying to get a new one... Such a surprise that they ask about it, right?

The way of dealing with this issue is simple. The first, seemingly trivial statement is the following: think and prepare this answer BEFORE the meeting, before commencing to communicate to the world who you are and what you want. Well, eureka, right? And somehow quite a lot of us do not come up with this. Preparing of such an explanation is not too difficult either; you just need to follow six basic rules. Let's go through them step by step.

Number one – tell the truth. Under no circumstances are you allowed to lie. It is a question of values and this alone should be enough. But the package also contains a practical element. A lie, sooner or later, comes to light. Today the world is too small, and the network of personal contacts too dense, to believe that something can remain hidden. A few phone calls to friends of friends, a few questions on social media sites and our interviewer will sooner or later arrive at some version of the story from our workplace. Even a small ambiguity (not to mention a straight-up lie) can be very costly. It's not a courtroom - all doubts work to our disadvantage. Victor Suvorov's put it well in his book "Aquarium": if we cannot trust you with small matters, how can we trust you with the serious ones?! (I quote from memory). The truth can also be told in various ways without manipulating the facts. Let me illustrate it to you. Imagine that you are talking to two people who do exactly the same thing. One of them says that he contributes to a healthy lifestyle in the neighborhood, convenience and comfort. The other says he sells dead fish with cold rice. They are both telling the truth, because both of them... run a sushi bar. Our stories about the causes of leaving our work too often resemble the story with dead fish and cold rice.

Number two – the story must be short. No overlapping digressions and explanations that go three generations back... The longer you talk, the more likely the interviewer will not follow the plot. Then he will put a question mark in his notebook and make a phone call to the friends of the friends. And then he will hear only someone's version, which he will not be able to confront with yours, because you did not give him a chance to understand. What does short mean? Preferably up to six sentences. I assure you, you can do it.

Number three - it must be up to six short sentences, and each of them should give one specific piece of information. It is supposed to be like hammering nails one by one, and not slamming the surface all over. Bam! Bam! Bam! Done. After each sentence, you should make the interviewer hear and feel a clear full stop. And after the last sentence, we go silent and look them in the eyes calmly waiting for further questions. Do not be afraid of silence. You've said enough.

Number four - speak a clear language. No jargon, no concepts specific to you and your company, no references to people they don’t know (“and then Jack said there will be layoffs", who the hell is Jack?!). Instead, refer to the common knowledge about economic processes, such as merging/selling/buying/restructuring companies or crisis situations. Thanks to this, the interlocutor immediately begins to add to what is going on in such situations (this is common knowledge), and we do not have to add anything.

Number five - create a logical order of sentences from the general to the specific. The order of sentences is significant. From the first one stems the second; from the second the third, so on. Avoid chaos. Start with the situation on this level, which initiated the avalanche, show its effect on the levels below, down to your position. Show if and how much the situation was independent of you and your results. Do not forget to add whether the company offered you something else (because it happens, and this is very important information!).

Number six – switch off emotions and... do not moan. It's already happened, you've been let go, you don't work there anymore. Even if it happened a week ago and it was a shock for you, it's just a historical value. Like the Battle of Gettysburg. It happened and it's over. Do not let yourself be provoked by questions like: How did you feel about it? Oh, how could they treat you like this after twelve years? Then you just lose it and begin to renounce fate, the boss and the Klingons... And the interlocutor smiles politely and makes notes. Only not necessarily those you would like them to. Show that you are able to face a difficult situation, that you are mature, that you understand business processes and your role in them in accordance with the provisions of the employment contract. How much better it sounds if you say "I was not happy, but the company had the right to do so; that has been settled and now I am thinking of the future" rather than the above-mentioned moaning.

What is the effect of applying the above six principles? Very simple and very desirable. Your interlocutor will automatically take notes during your speech: you speak briefly, simply, understandably, calmly; he really wants to write it down, because it is almost a readymade report about you. And the story is so logical and credible that it does not provoke further questions. The interlocutor says "Aha, I understand", makes a full stop in his notes and goes on to the next question. Even if you get a Spanish Inquisitor, who will ask you the same thing a few times over, you politely use the broken record method.

And now let's turn to a few examples. They are all true and have been taken from my professional practice. How often do I help people to turn a real story about a dead fish into an equally real one about healthy lifestyle and comfort...

Example 1

- A dead fish version: my position was terminated, I have no job, I am shocked...

A potential conclusion about you: a passive man, he got fired first, that is, he was not very useful, he does not understand what is going on around him,

- A pro version: the mother company was in trouble at the global level and has decided to simplify the structure; they closed down a whole level: 14 positions in several countries; this also included my position, despite achieving goals and good assessments; I was offered a different function, but I would have to relocate; for family reasons this was not possible; we parted ways, the company paid me more money than the contract said and paid for the outplacement program.

I can't emphasize it enough - this is a real story. The manager who I worked with started with the version with the fish, although in the background he had such important facts, putting him in a completely different, real light. Moreover, the whole story is told in just six sentences.

Example 2

- A dead fish version: a new boss came round, we did not get along; after six months we parted ways...

- A pro version: the company decided to switch from direct to indirect sale on a regional level; for the last 5 years I built a distributor network and sales team in the company; changing the strategy requires letting go a number of people and terminating contracts with distributors; a new director from outside of our industry was recruited for this purpose; I decided that I would not be credible when I tell the market that what I was doing successfully until yesterday is wrong today; together we decided to part ways.

Example 3

- A dead fish version: a new boss came round, we had other visions of [business development/people management/.............], after several months of argument we parted ways...

Asked about details you usually say something very general and very lengthy

- A pro version: a new boss came round; we had a different approach to [business development/people management / ............]; two or three single-sentence specific examples (!); we decided that these are irreconcilable differences and I decided to go to the labor market.

Example 4

- A dead fish version: I am not looking for a job, but you have called me yourself, I came out of curiosity, so - I'm listening...

- a pro version: I am not actively looking for a job; in the present company my boss is my age and is good [or e.g.: I cannot learn much in the current position]; it could block me for a few years; in the position description I received, I was interested in ...... and ......; hence my presence here today.

Bearing in mind the above principles and examples, we can now reliably and credibly tell the true story of your breakup with each company. Of course, it excludes such extreme cases as being fired for a theft, mobbing, or other open violation of legal and social rules