When do you move jobs?

[wiggin]

I've been working at my current job (a medical device startup) for about 4 years. I was one of the first employees and have been able to help bring the technology from a proof of concept to an actual product that is currently in large animal trials and ramping up for first in human studies. I've learned a whole lot during the course of my work there, generally like my colleagues and boss, and think that my contributions are both meaningful and valued.

However, in recent months I've been a little frustrated - most of the problems I am tasked with solving now are important but not interesting problems. There's little fundamental scientific work left to do (until we start developing follow-on products) and my role has been more of a scientific resource/sanity check for fairly straightforward optimization problems. That being said, I have never commercialized a technology before and there's still a lot of the sausage making that I have yet to learn. Staying with the company through a successful first in human trial would definitely look good on my resume, with the only real thing I'd still be missing would be building out a sales force and product launch (something I have relatively little interest in becoming familiar with).

I haven't been specifically looking for a new role, but recently an opportunity fell in my lap. I am being considered for a more senior position in a much larger organization (a large and well heeled pharma company with a combination devices unit they're building out). I happen to be acquainted with the hiring manager who would be my boss and liked him a whole lot, and I think the feeling was mutual. The role would probably involve a lot of basic research and leading a team doing the kind of stuff I'm good at. The resources available to me would probably be effectively limitless (within reason). The downsides? First, I'd be working in a space I'm not as familiar with and am not sure I'd be able to excel immediately. Second, it's about an hour commute vs. half hour currently (though with an option for 1-2 WFH days a week). Third, I'd be walking out of my current role that is, frankly, fairly comfortable and allows me to learn about a lot of functions that are hard to experience in a large company.

The pay's a lot better up front (figure ~$80k/year higher) but without the unlimited upside of my current startup stock options. The responsibility would probably be a lot more, too, and my wife and I are already stretched thin at home now that she runs a division with ~40 people reporting through her. But it's the first opportunity to come my way in the last 4 years that actually made me consider leaving.

So... for those of you who have made an unforced career move, how did you decide to pull the trigger? How did you balance the known of your current role with the potential benefits of a different role? Did you feel bad leaving behind a project in which you'd invested a lot of effort, and a team you liked?

[Ominous Gamer]

I have no idea how large or accommodating your current place of employment is, but I've been at the same place for 20 years this July. When I get into a funk like what you're descriping I talk about it with my boss and sometimes their boss and I get shifted around. I've been behind our social media accounts, the internal and external websites, done passports, teach STEM to kids and tech to old farts. Within the next year I'll be opening a maker space and a recording studio.


Basically, talk to your boss, be honest with them with how you feel and what opportunities you have in front of you.

[wiggin]

Yeah I'm thinking about doing something like that. Unfortunately it's a small operation (20ish employees) and in the realm of my expertise there isn't really something that seems all that interesting right now. I'm currently being shifted to the new biggest problem (generally I'm a jack of all trades so get shifted to help fix whatever the problem of the month/quarter/year is) but it's probably going to be a fairly boring process of root cause analysis and defining the solution space... Very little fundamental new findings to discover. I'm thinking about leaning into learning other skills (management, handling 3rd party CROs, quality) but while those are valuable to know I haven't yet found a way to make it actually interesting.

I'm going to keep pursuing this opportunity for now, if only for the practice, but I do think I'll talk to my manager and see what's possible.

[Kazuha Vinland]

The thing that appears the most important to me, is the second to last paragraph. You have to figure out where your priorities are. I would assume that you are not in your youth anymore, considering you are mentioning both a wife and having been behind a start-up 4 years ago. Are there children involved? You first of all have to ask yourself the question, of whether work is of higher value to you, than your family life. And if not, how will this effectively impact your family life? It appears to me as if you are hinting at a relationship where things are already skewed towards work on your behalf, and even more so, your wife's. Is your relationship able to handle both the added stress of more responsibility, and more people being dependent on getting a hold of you on & off hours, in addition to waking up earlier to get to the work site, and arriving at home later? Is the work so tempting, that you are willing to sacrifice your own stay at home time with family, to pursue the career?

Like Ominous, I would second that you should first talk to your current boss, about how you feel about your current role, and if there is anything he can do so that you'll get tasked to do things more to your fancy. Leadership assignments would be one of those things, I reckon most people would find very fulfilling, and grow their personality.

[wiggin]

I would assume that you are not in your youth anymore,

Ouch.

For the rest, yes, it's always about work-life balance. My current role isn't great for this (startups and all) but this other role might have more formal responsibility, albeit in the context of an organization that has better defined roles and the possibility to take a slightly slower pace. I think that it's important to note that I don't think it's necessarily an either/or. While obviously we can't all have our cake and eat it too, I specifically chose this career over a more lucrative and easier one because I wanted to do something important and meaningful. I'm not just getting a job to clock in and take a paycheck, so I should want to put in the extra effort. That doesn't mean that I want my family life to suffer unduly, but part of the lives we are leading is intentionally modeling for our children that their choice of careers is important: that women can and should become professionals and leaders, that men can and should shoulder at least half of the household work and parenting duties, that people should strive to work in meaningful jobs that help make the world better. That comes with some costs that I wouldn't have if I was working some godawful 9-5 desk job as an insurance adjuster or something.

The reality is that I'm never going to have a job where I'm actually 'off' when I'm not physically at work, the real question is whether the marginal increase in inconvenience/stress is worth the added challenge and growth.

Like Ominous, I would second that you should first talk to your current boss, about how you feel about your current role, and if there is anything he can do so that you'll get tasked to do things more to your fancy. Leadership assignments would be one of those things, I reckon most people would find very fulfilling, and grow their personality.

Yeah, I speak with her regularly about career progression; we'll see what she says. The reality is that we have a pretty flat management structure since we're so small, so I have l have limited opportunities for formal leadership. I already lead several projects (generally painful ones) but that's about it.

[ar81]

There are 4 reasons to stay in a job:
* Money
* Good human environment
* Training that improves your resume (short term)
* Career perspectives (long term)
If there is none, move away.

If you are fired or there is a lay-off, move on. Forced mobility.

If you want a raise, asking for a raise does not work, move to another job.

[Kazuha Vinland]

Ouch.

Not at all meant in a bad way. What I meant is that you are probably at a phase in life, where you are rather well established and rooted. You do not just live for yourself anymore. You have a family that needs you and depend on you. I am not saying to ignore or deny your own dreams, just have a reflected thought about what a change in career, actually means for the work-life balance.

For the rest, yes, it's always about work-life balance. My current role isn't great for this (startups and all) but this other role might have more formal responsibility, albeit in the context of an organization that has better defined roles and the possibility to take a slightly slower pace. I think that it's important to note that I don't think it's necessarily an either/or. While obviously we can't all have our cake and eat it too, I specifically chose this career over a more lucrative and easier one because I wanted to do something important and meaningful. I'm not just getting a job to clock in and take a paycheck, so I should want to put in the extra effort. That doesn't mean that I want my family life to suffer unduly, but part of the lives we are leading is intentionally modeling for our children that their choice of careers is important: that women can and should become professionals and leaders, that men can and should shoulder at least half of the household work and parenting duties, that people should strive to work in meaningful jobs that help make the world better. That comes with some costs that I wouldn't have if I was working some godawful 9-5 desk job as an insurance adjuster or something.

The reality is that I'm never going to have a job where I'm actually 'off' when I'm not physically at work, the real question is whether the marginal increase in inconvenience/stress is worth the added challenge and growth.

Yeah, I speak with her regularly about career progression; we'll see what she says. The reality is that we have a pretty flat management structure since we're so small, so I have l have limited opportunities for formal leadership. I already lead several projects (generally painful ones) but that's about it.

I am the same. I educated myself to become a physiotherapist, and got a job that had alright pay (where I could manage my expenses), clocked in at 8, started working really at 9, had a full hour break at 12, and was done at 3.30PM every day due to work rules related to this specific occupation. While that to some would feel like a grand step towards a life of greater freedom, personally I hated it. Most due to what you here have mentioned. I found little to no fulfillment in the method of work, every day was sort of similar and I did not have any prospectives of career development down the line. Nothing to really reach for, or adversity to grow from. So instead I took a full time job as a sales leader at a major electronic consumer store. A line of work where basically an insane amount of responsibility has been pushed towards the sales leaders (beneath the department manager level and finally - store manager level). There are so many tasks to fulfill, in addition to managing 9 people, that I constantly find myself searching for tiny little details I can optimize in my work flow - just to get a chance at a break. Now in my case, this literally means having to work one to two hours overtime, without additional pay. When I come home, my mind is still very much occupied with solving or reflecting on work processes, and the evening shift is in addition, calling me 4-5 times every day, when off duty. Likewise, I reckon some people would absolutely hate this kind of job. Especially when you factor in that due to lack of requirement of an education, pay is not awesome compared to the amount of stress and hours put in. But for me, I am really passionate about the job, because I love consumer electronics, I love sales and I love being successful at something people would find challenging to be successful at.

In your case, I would argue that you are already better off. Yes, you are part of a start up, but as you are saying, you have a rather flat management structure, so your input is actually to a higher sense valued, and taken into consideration. As for myself, my expertise is valued, but I have little choice but to say "yes sir", when a decision is made above my level, which I sincerely do not agree with. When my vision differs from the rest of the team, I have to accept the fact that I have to grind in order to climb in the hierarchy, in order to exert that kind of own will. But in this case, I think the issue is actually sort of the opposite. You are a very free agent. Sure, you work on behalf of your company vision, but you have largely been given free responsibility across much of your daily tasks. You are managing this, while also somehow keeping work-life balance in check, even if just barely. If I could guess, I would say that you are probably in a position where you can make tweaks or agreements with your boss, to also shift the amount of responsibility, to add or subtract from the work part of this balance. This flexibility is an extraordinary luxury, that one should not by any means take for granted.

So what is inherently the issue here? You said you chose your current career over a more lucrative and easy one, because you were meant to do something more important and meaningful. Alright, there is your motivation and deciding factor. Do you think, in a mid to long term perspective, that your job no longer fulfills these things? And that through communication with your boss, this is even so not viable to change whatsoever? Good, then definitely listen to your heart, and start looking for alternatives. Maybe that is a different start-up which excites you, or maybe it is a more formal job like you mentioned, where you have been promised to get to work with the specific things that drives you. That can be good too, although like I said, adversity and challenges is an important part of enjoyment at work, but not when it makes the rest of your life not manageable. Every person has their limits, and to me the hour commute each way combined with added work load, would personally raise a red flag - unless I was 25, in a relationship without children, and had plenty of opportunities to rest and take life at ease outside of work.

There are 4 reasons to stay in a job:
* Money
* Good human environment
* Training that improves your resume (short term)
* Career perspectives (long term)
If there is none, move away.

If you are fired or there is a lay-off, move on. Forced mobility.

If you want a raise, asking for a raise does not work, move to another job.

I do agree and somewhat disagree. You need money to make a living of course, but when you have a decent salary, moving to a line of work with higher salary, is rarely a good idea, if the kind of job you will be doing, is worse off itself. People largely overestimate the happiness that increased finances will give them. That better TV, fancier car or slightly larger flat, is something you will get accustomed to shockingly fast. A good human environment, yes, training that improves your resume short term, yes, and career perspectives, also yes. I would add to that purposefulness and matching personal abilities to line of work. I for one, have a really competitive instinct. While I would also consider myself empathic and humane in my relations to other people, I was not able to let these forces by drivers of motivation, when I worked in health care. Now I do something where I am more fueled by competitive instinct, wheres being empathic and humane are not requirements in my line of work, although I try to incorporate them still in any way I can. As to purpose, this is my current achilles heel in my own line of work. I do assist people in helping them attain products that fit their requirements, but first-most I work at the benefit of my company, and growing their profit margins. This usually compromises in finding a product B, which fits the prescription of the customer, instead of product A, which maybe fit a tiny bit better, but at a large expense of profits. This I can have internal struggles with, that I overcome by saying that what I do otherwise, is a good compromise - developing people, organizing new systems that make the operational aspects more lean, and contributing to that we are growing, and giving more people a chance at work. I would much rather like Wiggin, have been born with abilities, and more importantly, passion towards the health industry, where I could make a living out of improving other people's lives in a profound and non-compromising way (although I get once you start with sales and product development with cost involved, this is also not necessarily true, as health providing also turns into a business then). But that's just not my cup of tea, something that can drive me on a daily basis with motivation and joy, and hence I have accepted my current cause - albeit non perfect.

[GGT]

I have an unconventional suggestion: quit your current job and be a stay-at-home dad for a while. I'm guessing you can do that for at least 6 months without losing personal career tempo, or see any long-term financial devastation. Of course you'd have to run that by your wife first, as she'd be the main bread-winner...but she might welcome you being the main care-taker (if you do it right).

Consider it an unpaid sabbatical; time to think, re-group, and prioritize *outside* the workplace with all its distractions and demands. You're already in the group 'most likely to succeed' so don't worry too much. On the plus side, you'll get to know your kids and bond with them while they're young, which is priceless, and something few fathers have the luxury of knowing.

[wiggin]

I can't possibly afford that. Not if I want to pay for their education and own a home some day.

[GGT]

Of course you could afford to do it. Maybe you don't *want* to do that, which is fine, just be honest about it.

[Aimless]

I have an unconventional suggestion: quit your current job and be a stay-at-home dad for a while. I'm guessing you can do that for at least 6 months without losing personal career tempo, or see any long-term financial devastation. Of course you'd have to run that by your wife first, as she'd be the main bread-winner...but she might welcome you being the main care-taker (if you do it right).

Consider it an unpaid sabbatical; time to think, re-group, and prioritize *outside* the workplace with all its distractions and demands. You're already in the group 'most likely to succeed' so don't worry too much. On the plus side, you'll get to know your kids and bond with them while they're young, which is priceless, and something few fathers have the luxury of knowing.

Best thing I ever did—and might do again, if we have another baby. But obv the financial aspects work out differently in the US.

[wiggin]

Of course you could afford to do it. Maybe you don't *want* to do that, which is fine, just be honest about it.

One of our salaries pays for taxes, rent, childcare/tuition. Everything else is covered by our second salary: healthcare, food, retirement/college/house savings, transportation, entertainment, etc.

I don't know about you, but I like to eat and occasionally need to go to the doctor. I could pause the savings bits and cut down on our already minimal entertainment outlay, but it wouldn't balance the budget.

Could we survive for a period of time on only one salary? Yes, but only by drawing on our emergency fund and cutting out all discretionary savings. I do not think that is a workable solution.

[GGT]

I don't want to argue about your personal choices wiggin, but your expenses for Child Care/Tuition and transportation would automatically be reduced to nearly zero with one stay-at-home parent. If *your* employment is what pays for your family's health insurance, because your wife's employer does not...that's a different scenario. (Also unacceptable, btw.)

IMO it's a sad commentary on the US...when a fairly privileged and well-educated family like yours can't "afford" for one parent to temporarily take time off work, in order to secure a "better" job. And since most workers don't have the Parental or Family Leave you likely enjoyed from your current employer....it would be nice if you at least acknowledge the disparities that others are forced to live, without choice, before you complain about your choices.

[wiggin]

I don't want to argue about your personal choices wiggin, but your expenses for Child Care/Tuition and transportation would automatically be reduced to nearly zero with one stay-at-home parent. If *your* employment is what pays for your family's health insurance, because your wife's employer does not...that's a different scenario. (Also unacceptable, btw.)

I believe it's the law that children attend grade school, GGT. And my youngest thrives at daycare, we would want him there even with a SAHP because of the structured content, English lessons, and socialization - not to mention the fact that taking him out of daycare can't be 'temporary' if daycare slots are as sparse as they are in my area (we signed up both of our kids about 6 months before they were born to ensure there was a spot). As for transportation, we still need our (single) car even if I wasn't working. There would be a marginal drop in fuel costs, but that's not our big expense since we only drive ~7-8k miles a year. Figure our fuel budget is $500-600 pa, hardly anything worth considering.

IMO it's a sad commentary on the US...when a fairly privileged and well-educated family like yours can't "afford" for one parent to temporarily take time off work, in order to secure a "better" job. And since most workers don't have the Parental or Family Leave you likely enjoyed from your current employer....it would be nice if you at least acknowledge the disparities that others are forced to live, without choice, before you complain about your choices.

GGT, this thread had nothing to do with others, it was a question about a choice I was facing. Obviously I have it good, I've been very open about the fact that being in a two-earner professional household means that we have been catapulted well into the highest decile of households. Of course this is a first world problem, I'm choosing between one highly specialized and well-paying job and another one.

As for us not being able to afford a single income, it's hardly a shock. If we lived in Memphis or Idaho, we could easily live on a single income (with much more luxury than our current two incomes provide). But we have chosen careers that don't have good prospects (especially for two professionals) outside of a few very expensive cities. I think that the work I do is important and worthwhile, and so I'm willing to deal with the crazy cost of living in order to do it.

[GGT]

....not to mention the fact that taking him out of daycare can't be 'temporary' if daycare slots are as sparse as they are in my area (we signed up both of our kids about 6 months before they were born to ensure there was a spot).

That's a problem, emblematic of other problems.

As for us not being able to afford a single income, it's hardly a shock. If we lived in Memphis or Idaho, we could easily live on a single income (with much more luxury than our current two incomes provide). But we have chosen careers that don't have good prospects (especially for two professionals) outside of a few very expensive cities. I think that the work I do is important and worthwhile, and so I'm willing to deal with the crazy cost of living in order to do it.

That's the other problem. It's not a criticism of you personally, wiggin, but rather an indictment that professionals like you feel limited by geography. As if you can ONLY do your job in urban hubs with expensive COL. I'm suggesting that you could live anywhere and still do your very important, worthwhile job...but only if you think outside the box, and stop limiting yourself to the current bio-medical corridor 'conventional wisdom'.

That's why I thought you and your family could benefit from a time-out sabbatical of sorts. You already enjoy the best of prospects, regardless of what you choose. But you've already decided that you have to stay where you are....so why ask others "When do you move jobs" when you're not willing to move for your job?

[wiggin]

That's a problem, emblematic of other problems.

Agreed, the availability of good quality, reasonably priced full-time daycares is a big issue (my state is generally believed to have the most expensive daycare in the country). Not one I will be able to solve on my own, though, I'm afraid.

That's the other problem. It's not a criticism of you personally, wiggin, but rather an indictment that professionals like you feel limited by geography. As if you can ONLY do your job in urban hubs with expensive COL. I'm suggesting that you could live anywhere and still do your very important, worthwhile job...but only if you think outside the box, and stop limiting yourself to the current bio-medical corridor 'conventional wisdom'.

It is possible that I or my wife could find a good job outside of the major hubs for our field. It is improbable, however, that two of us could. I do not want to ask my wife to sacrifice her career to further my own, any more than I'd expect her to ask me to do the same thing. For example, 5 years ago I was offered a job outside Greensboro, NC. COL was very low, the salary was similar to what I ended up getting paid in my current role, and it was a technically fascinating and futuristic project with major implications for the future of healthcare. But we spent quite a bit of time talking to the industry folks in NC about what my wife's prospects would look like. Could she get a job? Absolutely, she's a far better catch than I am. Would it afford her the kind of growth and opportunities at her current job? No way. Combined with some other considerations, I regretfully turned it down.

Jobs like mine don't grow on trees, they exist in ecosystems that rely on a diverse and deep pool of technical talent, funding, and infrastructure. That's why these kinds of things develop into clusters. I have been recruited for multiple positions off the beaten path, but always ran up against the twin issues of the two-body problem and the prospects for the next job after my role comes to its conclusion.

That's why I thought you and your family could benefit from a time-out sabbatical of sorts. You already enjoy the best of prospects, regardless of what you choose. But you've already decided that you have to stay where you are....so why ask others "When do you move jobs" when you're not willing to move for your job?

I wasn't asking people about moving where I live, I was asking about moving where I work. Both jobs are in the same metropolitan area. I'm not sure why you're confused?

[GGT]

I wasn't asking people about moving where I live, I was asking about moving where I work. Both jobs are in the same metropolitan area. I'm not sure why you're confused?

You could expand your career search to Ohio (the Cleveland Clinic) and Minnesota (the Mayo Clinic), but since you decided that NC (even tho their Research corridor is top notch) wasn't a good choice, and you regret not taking a job opportunity there says a lot about your decision-making process. While it's great you considered your wife's job prospects in the mix....I'm not convinced that staying where you are actually does *her* or your kids much good in the grand scheme of things.

These are hard decisions, for sure. I gave an unconventional suggestion, and you rejected it. You want to stay where you are but find a better job that expands your career options. That's your comfort zone. Good luck with that, wiggin.

[wiggin]

You could expand your career search to Ohio (the Cleveland Clinic) and Minnesota (the Mayo Clinic), but since you decided that NC (even tho their Research corridor is top notch) wasn't a good choice, and you regret not taking a job opportunity there says a lot about your decision-making process. While it's great you considered your wife's job prospects in the mix....I'm not convinced that staying where you are actually does *her* or your kids much good in the grand scheme of things.

These are hard decisions, for sure. I gave an unconventional suggestion, and you rejected it. You want to stay where you are but find a better job that expands your career options. That's your comfort zone. Good luck with that, wiggin.

First off, you don't even know what I do other than that it's in healthcare. I have a very specialized skill set. I am intimately familiar with the opportunities available to me and my wife; we are employable in many locations but only with solid career advancing jobs in a handful of locations. I was not and am not asking for advice on my specific career, but for how people weigh pros and cons in leaving a position voluntarily for another (ostensibly better) position. Secondly, what gave you the idea that I regret not taking the job in NC? 'Regretfully' just means I didn't reject it out of hand; it was a nice opportunity but not the right one for me or my family. Not taking that job was definitely the right choice, I don't regret it at all.

[GGT]

For example, 5 years ago I was offered a job outside Greensboro, NC. COL was very low, the salary was similar to what I ended up getting paid in my current role, and it was a technically fascinating and futuristic project with major implications for the future of healthcare. But we spent quite a bit of time talking to the industry folks in NC about what my wife's prospects would look like. Could she get a job? Absolutely, she's a far better catch than I am. Would it afford her the kind of growth and opportunities at her current job? No way. Combined with some other considerations, I regretfully turned it down.

[wiggin]

See my edit. Regretfully refers to my feelings at the time that it was a nice opportunity, not that I thought I was making the wrong decision. It was the right decision at the time and it continues to be the right decision now.

[GGT]

You asked, I answered.

wiggin, it seems to me you've already made up your mind about "moving jobs" but are looking for validation. You like to talk about how specialized your area of expertise is, but you ask anyone/everyone about their career choices, as if you might glean some insight from their choices. Almost all career decisions are basically individual, but you treat yours as different -- even special?

Anyway, if all you're looking for is validation, do whatever makes you feel good. Or important, or powerful, or whatever. Don't listen to anyone else, let alone heed their advice. Unless it comes from your wife.

[Aimless]

It will never cease to amaze me how much that neighbourhood—granted, the only neighbourhood in the US I have any indirect insights into—can fuck people up. This quandary seems to honestly be less about current job satisfaction and more about a heightened emotional awareness of the risk that the products might not pan out, which has tipped the scales to a point where things have gotten very difficult due to the emotional and social issues. The tech really is very cool, but it is correct that the risks are very high; it really might not pan out. This is a fairly critical stage in Wig's career, and I think it's correct that taking time off in the way you propose would be kinda devastating for his long-term success and earnings. Jumping ship would bump him "down" to a much more conservative but incredibly good baseline—but come with a certain risk of having to feel like the chicken who wussed out and missed a multi million dollar + prestigecoin payoff if/when the company makes it big; if that were to happen, it would be gently but very noticeably rubbed in his face all the time. Staying put comes with the risk of feeling a little bad when the tech doesn't pan out and you have to think about how you "had the chance" but wasn't smart enough to jump ship when the time was right. Both involve risk of harm to self-image and minor risk of harm to social image. From a career and stability perspective, the risks are smaller with jumping ship, but, from an emotional and social perspective, the risks are smaller—and the potential reward much greater—with staying put. Neither option is wrong, but one is considerably more prudent. So, is Wiggin prudent, or is he bold? How well can any of us answer questions like that about ourselves?

[Flixy]

Can't really be of much help, my experiences so far was either moving involuntarily (layoffs) or because I wanted to leave since the department was in chaos, the project run like shit, and I didn't trust my coworkers - that was a fairly easy choice to make.

I personally would like to see a project run through the end, but that's also because I personally do find commercialization and industrialisation interesting. And so far I haven't seen a project through to the end so that'd be nice for a change as well.

I will say that this:

I'd be working in a space I'm not as familiar with and am not sure I'd be able to excel immediately

Shouldn't hold you back, it's perfectly reasonable not to excel at the start*, and leaving your comfort zone is a great way to learn and grow.

*provided you don't oversell yourself when interviewing of course.

[ar81]

See my edit. Regretfully refers to my feelings at the time that it was a nice opportunity, not that I thought I was making the wrong decision. It was the right decision at the time and it continues to be the right decision now.

I may suggest a cool affordable activity with your kid. I have found many parents in USA who are using tabletop game "Battletech a game of armored combat" to keep their kids sharp in math. The psychoaffective side of turning that into happy family time, have had great results for them. Kids love miniatures and if it delivers happy moments, kids will have fun. Think of it as chess with math, a giant robot combat simulator on tabletop. If it is too difficult, you may buy the "Battletech beginner box" with simplified rules. For the standard box "Battletech fan" made a visual guide to watch with the rulebook which may be intimidating for a newcomer.

A parent recently told me...

Its a very good learning tool. I played with my 8 year old and it forces him to think and use math, while having fun and strategizing.

That is less radical and more affordable than quitting your job. Just make sure there are no interruptions during family time. A game may take one week using classic rules, or 4 hours if yu use Alpha Strike rules (you need a rulebook called "Alpha strike commander's edition" and beginner's box does not include the alpha strike cards, so you need to buy "Battletech a game of armored combat" boxset)

[wiggin]

Can't really be of much help, my experiences so far was either moving involuntarily (layoffs) or because I wanted to leave since the department was in chaos, the project run like shit, and I didn't trust my coworkers - that was a fairly easy choice to make.

I personally would like to see a project run through the end, but that's also because I personally do find commercialization and industrialisation interesting. And so far I haven't seen a project through to the end so that'd be nice for a change as well.

Honestly, this last point is a really solid one. I tend to want to stick things out. I know it's silly, but I feel a certain level of obligation toward the project and the company. Obviously there isn't any true obligation - they paid me, I worked, and that's the end of what I owe them. Even so, I wouldn't want to leave things half-finished, especially given that my relatively lengthy tenure means I am the local 'historian' on things we've tried in the past but abandoned for one reason or another. I would be pretty satisfied if I was able to get the technology into the clinic (though maybe not going all the way to full commercialization).

The actual risk to me sticking around or leaving is pretty small - the financial consequences are pretty modest since I already have a large proportion of options vested, and the technology is far enough along that I'm pretty convinced it will pan out in some form. The real balance here is between going for a more interesting set of challenges at a new role vs. seeing my current work come to fruition and learn more of the nitty-gritty work involved in getting things over the finish line.

I will say that this:

Shouldn't hold you back, it's perfectly reasonable not to excel at the start*, and leaving your comfort zone is a great way to learn and grow.

*provided you don't oversell yourself when interviewing of course.

Hmm, yes, but I won't be just an individual contributor; I'll be responsible for managing the scientific output of a team and hitting relatively ambitious timelines. It's harder to do that when you're not on the top of your game.

A postdoc I once worked with told me that when you move to a new research role, you should change one of three things: the system you're studying, the tools you're using, or the intervention you're attempting. In this case, the system would be different, and while there are similarities in both the tools and intervention, they're different enough that I'd be on shaky ground for a while as I got up to speed. If I'm expected to be the scientific mentor and manager for a bunch of people, I really want to be as close to an expert as possible, to help my managees excel.

I'm talking to a few of the technical folks on the team at the new place this week. I'm going to try to get a better feel for the role and how far outside my comfort zone this really is. We'll see!

I may suggest a cool affordable activity with your kid. I have found many parents in USA who are using tabletop game "Battletech a game of armored combat" to keep their kids sharp in math. The psychoaffective side of turning that into happy family time, have had great results for them. Kids love miniatures and if it delivers happy moments, kids will have fun. Think of it as chess with math, a giant robot combat simulator on tabletop. If it is too difficult, you may buy the "Battletech beginner box" with simplified rules. For the standard box "Battletech fan" made a visual guide to watch with the rulebook which may be intimidating for a newcomer.

A parent recently told me...


That is less radical and more affordable than quitting your job. Just make sure there are no interruptions during family time. A game may take one week using classic rules, or 4 hours if yu use Alpha Strike rules (you need a rulebook called "Alpha strike commander's edition" and beginner's box does not include the alpha strike cards, so you need to buy "Battletech a game of armored combat" boxset)

Um, thanks?

[GGT]

It will never cease to amaze me how much that neighbourhood—granted, the only neighbourhood in the US I have any indirect insights into—can fuck people up. This quandary seems to honestly be less about current job satisfaction and more about a heightened emotional awareness of the risk that the products might not pan out, which has tipped the scales to a point where things have gotten very difficult due to the emotional and social issues. The tech really is very cool, but it is correct that the risks are very high; it really might not pan out. This is a fairly critical stage in Wig's career, and I think it's correct that taking time off in the way you propose would be kinda devastating for his long-term success and earnings. Jumping ship would bump him "down" to a much more conservative but incredibly good baseline—but come with a certain risk of having to feel like the chicken who wussed out and missed a multi million dollar + prestigecoin payoff if/when the company makes it big; if that were to happen, it would be gently but very noticeably rubbed in his face all the time. Staying put comes with the risk of feeling a little bad when the tech doesn't pan out and you have to think about how you "had the chance" but wasn't smart enough to jump ship when the time was right. Both involve risk of harm to self-image and minor risk of harm to social image. From a career and stability perspective, the risks are smaller with jumping ship, but, from an emotional and social perspective, the risks are smaller—and the potential reward much greater—with staying put. Neither option is wrong, but one is considerably more prudent. So, is Wiggin prudent, or is he bold? How well can any of us answer questions like that about ourselves?

We'd have to be able to jump forward, and anticipate any regrets. Which, or course, we cannot do. By their very nature, regrets are framed in the past. (Woulda coulda shoulda.)

I just think it's a shame that wiggin (whose among the top 10% of STEM R&D) doesn't think he can take a few months off work, as an in- between-jobs sabbatical, because it will hurt his prospects for career advancement, affording child care, or owning a home. If he can't do it, then no one can.

[wiggin]

I just think it's a shame that wiggin (whose among the top 10% of STEM R&D) doesn't think he can take a few months off work, as an in- between-jobs sabbatical, because it will hurt his prospects for career advancement, affording child care, or owning a home. If he can't do it, then no one can.

In the Boston metro area? It's pretty standard to require two-earner households to make it work. My wife and I are obviously well paid by national standards, but we're not dramatically well paid by local standards; most of the people my age who can afford homes and/or large families have some combination of the following: 1) they live in the boonies, 2) they have money from their parents, 3) they work in jobs that pay far better than mine (e.g. corporate lawyer at a white shoe firm, managers/programmers at places like Google). It is indeed a big problem.

[Dreadnaught]

Honestly, this last point is a really solid one. I tend to want to stick things out. I know it's silly, but I feel a certain level of obligation toward the project and the company. Obviously there isn't any true obligation - they paid me, I worked, and that's the end of what I owe them. Even so, I wouldn't want to leave things half-finished, especially given that my relatively lengthy tenure means I am the local 'historian' on things we've tried in the past but abandoned for one reason or another. I would be pretty satisfied if I was able to get the technology into the clinic (though maybe not going all the way to full commercialization).

The actual risk to me sticking around or leaving is pretty small - the financial consequences are pretty modest since I already have a large proportion of options vested, and the technology is far enough along that I'm pretty convinced it will pan out in some form. The real balance here is between going for a more interesting set of challenges at a new role vs. seeing my current work come to fruition and learn more of the nitty-gritty work involved in getting things over the finish line.


Hmm, yes, but I won't be just an individual contributor; I'll be responsible for managing the scientific output of a team and hitting relatively ambitious timelines. It's harder to do that when you're not on the top of your game.

You answered the question I was going to ask, which is do you have a financial interest in these later-stage efforts that you don't influence.

In which case, pending due diligence I think you should considering moving. Your loyalty to the product is admirable, but your work is done and you aren't being given much incentive to hang around -- and it sounds like you feel like you are basically hanging around. If these years of work pan-out, you will always get to feel (and say! and spend $$ !) that you were integral to the start of your current product.

You may as well get the career growth, salary increase and new challenge. Also doesn't hurt to hedge in case the current product has a real problem, right?

[wiggin]

You answered the question I was going to ask, which is do you have a financial interest in these later-stage efforts that you don't influence.

If I exercise my options on exit, I will have the cost of the options at risk; it's obviously a relatively large bet (think low 5 figures) since I'd be putting cash into a company I'm leaving, but the upside potential is pretty high and I'm a pretty big believer in the technology. If I stayed I could theoretically just hold the options and exercise later, which would give me less risk now. That being said, I will probably want to start exercises within a year or so anyways because I want to hold onto ISOs for at least a year before a sale for the substantial tax difference; the first likely acquisition date is a couple of years away.

In which case, pending due diligence I think you should considering moving. Your loyalty to the product is admirable, but your work is done and you aren't being given much incentive to hang around -- and it sounds like you feel like you are basically hanging around. If these years of work pan-out, you will always get to feel (and say! and spend $$ !) that you were integral to the start of your current product.

You may as well get the career growth, salary increase and new challenge. Also doesn't hurt to hedge in case the current product has a real problem, right?

I finished a few rounds of interviews at the new place; I think they went well. At first I wasn't super inclined to move just because of lifestyle issues and some skepticism about the role. But as I've met with more of the team, I'm actually becoming more interested. It's a solid multidisciplinary team that's being run as a separate fiefdom inside the larger organization - but with big pharma kind of resources. I think I'd have a lot of opportunities to grow, learn, and expand my capabilities.

They're also working on an idea that's been kind of a holy grail to address a very big clinical problem; it sounds like they actually have a chance of solving it. I really like those kind of approaches - taking on hard unmet needs that others have failed at, and doing the hard (and risky) work to figure out a solution. So much of medtech/biotech/pharma is just tweaks on existing approaches or slight improvements over gold standard therapies. I prefer swinging for the fences rather than trying for a bunt single, and this definitely counts (as does my current job, which is why I've enjoyed it so much). I think it could be really transformational for treating (/almost curing) a common and expensive disease with huge QOL ramifications. That being said, I won't have nearly the kind of ownership over the technology/approach/product as I do in my current role; I was intimately involved in pretty much everything from day 1 at my current job, but at the new place I'd be joining a much larger team that already has a generation 1 prototype in advanced testing.

If I get an offer, I'll have to do some tough thinking. I really like the team I'm in, and I am continuing to learn new things (albeit typically less interesting things). On the other hand, I think I'm mostly being valued as a walking library on the technology, how to get specific things done, etc. That and my meticulous attention to detail that allows for high yields in our process. I'm not really doing much science any more.

[GGT]

On the other hand, I think I'm mostly being valued as a walking library on the technology, how to get specific things done, etc. That and my meticulous attention to detail that allows for high yields in our process. I'm not really doing much science any more.

But earlier you said it was all about the science. And what you could contribute. You were on the verge of helping paralyzed people walk. Now you just want to buy child care and get a home mortgage...and build that $5 million retirement portfolio?