# Good 'reason for leaving' for prospective employers



## Caveat (6 Feb 2008)

Hi

A friend of mine has been in a niche public sector position for about 1 year - had been in another niche public sector area for the preceding 4 years or so.

Basically, he wants out - he feels the move from private to public was a bad idea generally but the current position is almost intolerable. Terrible management, unprofessionalism, utter disorganisation, laziness and office politics are the main reasons for leaving.

When going for interviews for new (private sector) positions what would be regarded an acceptable reason for leaving a position after 1 year? One year in a job rarely sounds good.

Would appreciate any suggestions/advice


----------



## pinkyBear (6 Feb 2008)

Not necessarily, he could say it is a commuting issue, that after working in the public service now for 5 years he want to work in the private sector.


----------



## MrMan (6 Feb 2008)

The reasons posted above should be enough. Stating the move was disappointing and they felt under resourced and that ambitions could not be met there. A positive spin can be put on most reasons for leaving and i wouldn't see leaving after one year as a negative point, at least they tried to stick it out.


----------



## bigjoe_dub (6 Feb 2008)

was not been challanged enough.


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2008)

I think that outlining the reasons as stated by the OP would go down well. He's not lazy and is professional in how he does his work. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Caveat (6 Feb 2008)

Thanks so far - sounds reasonable I suppose.

I think he's so distracted by the real reasons that anything else sounds like a poor excuse!


----------



## Caveat (6 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> I think that outlining the reasons as stated by the OP would go down well. He's not lazy and is professional in how he does his work. Sounds good to me.


 
Are you serious?  I always thought that 'dissing' a previous employer - even if it's true - was a big no no at interviews, even if you are circumspect about it.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Feb 2008)

I think it's a bad move to explicitly criticise a former employer, managers or colleagues in an interview even if it is actually justified. Better to put a positive spin on things - e.g. not challenging enough (as mentioned above), looking for a different working environment (e.g. smaller versus bigger company, process orientated versus dynamic/creative approach etc. etc.).


----------



## Sylvester3 (6 Feb 2008)

I agree with Clubman on this issue - I have always looked for positive reasons for leaving rather than negative. A new employer will be wary of an employee who is critical of current/previous employees as they might come across as troublemakers, no matter what the justification is.


----------



## quinno (6 Feb 2008)

God, that sounds where I used to work in the public sector!! I stayed 15 months, moved to the private sector as I didn't like what I saw in the public.TBH, I was straight up with prospective employers, in terms of my reason for leaving, without totally going for the jugular, and also focussing on the positive rather than the negative aspects!! I think most people working in the private sector have an idea (not always correct!) what the public sector is like. I must admit, not as cushy as lead to believe, but (in my experience) riddled with politics, cronyism and bullying... glad to be out of it.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Feb 2008)

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the job did not turn out as expected and then expanding on that without slagging off the employer/manager/colleagues/processes etc.


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2008)

Everybody in the private sector will have that anti public sector bias so reinforcing it in an interview will do no harm.
I would leave out the office politics bit but other than that it's fine.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> Everybody in the private sector will have that anti public sector bias so reinforcing it in an interview will do no harm.


I don't and I know plenty of others who don't too. I have never worked in the public sector other than a summer job in a semi state between third and fourth year in college. If I was interviewing somebody and they started slagging off their former employers/managers/colleagues etc. then I would mark them down for that - regardless of whether they were coming from a public, semi-state or private sector job.


----------



## marvin (6 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> Everybody in the private sector will have that anti public sector bias so reinforcing it in an interview will do no harm.


 
That's an incredibly generalised and ill-informed comment - but is pretty typical of the type of anti-public sector vile I've come to expect on this board.

I have worked in the public sector for the past number of years and the comments of the OP do not in any way mirror my working environment. I am surrounded by hard working, dedicated and committed professionals who provide an excellent service to the public at a fraction of the cost that would be charged by private sector companies. I'm not naive enough to think that the public sector does not have inefficiencies - but to sully the professionalism of hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens with a sweeping generalisation such as yours, I find contemptuous.

Many many private sector companies are dependent on contracts from the public service to keep in business and would therefore be unlikely to share your tendentious, ill-considered views.


----------



## rmelly (6 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> Everybody in the private sector will have that anti public sector bias so reinforcing it in an interview will do no harm.
> I would leave out the office politics bit but other than that it's fine.


 
I can't agree with that. What does it say about the OP's friend that he stayed in such an environment for a total of 5 years? I don't believe he'll get away with bad mouthing the previous employer(s) without it reflecting poorly on him.


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2008)

marvin said:


> That's an incredibly generalised and ill-informed comment - but is pretty typical of the type of anti-public sector vile I've come to expect on this board.
> 
> I have worked in the public sector for the past number of years and the comments of the OP do not in any way mirror my working environment. I am surrounded by hard working, dedicated and committed professionals who provide an excellent service to the public at a fraction of the cost that would be charged by private sector companies. I'm not naive enough to think that the public sector does not have inefficiencies - but to sully the professionalism of hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens with a sweeping generalisation such as yours, I find contemptuous.
> 
> Many many private sector companies are dependent on contracts from the public service to keep in business and would therefore be unlikely to share your tendentious, ill-considered views.


They are not my views, I was making a general comment about the anti public sector bias in the private sector. That's why I referred to it as a bias.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> They are not my views, I was making a general comment about the anti public sector bias in the private sector. That's why I referred to it as a bias.


You said that this bias was universal. A single exception (e.g. me) disproves that hypothesis. And I know that I am not the only exception.


Purple said:


> Everybody in the private sector will have that anti public sector bias so reinforcing it in an interview will do no harm.
> I would leave out the office politics bit but other than that it's fine.


----------



## Caveat (6 Feb 2008)

rmelly said:


> What does it say about the OP's friend that he stayed in such an environment for a total of 5 years?


 
It says that he is dedicated and not a quitter IMO.

In general his experience has not been good but in the original post, the specific comments I mention only relate to the last year.

Thanks to all for the comments/advice.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> It says that he is dedicated and not a quitter IMO.


Not an unreasonable analysis - especially if, when interviewed, they support this with some background info and evidence (e.g. about things that they saw as wrong or not ideal and how they worked to improve them - even if they failed in this endeavour).


----------



## rmelly (6 Feb 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Not an unreasonable analysis - especially if, when interviewed, they support this with some background info and evidence (e.g. about things that they saw as wrong or not ideal and how they worked to improve them - even if they failed in this endeavour).


 
Agreed, but this approach won't succeed if he bad mouths previous employers as Purple suggested - which was my point.


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2008)

rmelly said:


> Agreed, but this approach won't succeed if he bad mouths previous employers as Purple suggested - which was my point.


I suggested that it would not be a bad thing to talk about why he left his last job. I did not suggest that he bad mouths anybody.


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2008)

ClubMan said:


> You said that this bias was universal. A single exception (e.g. me) disproves that hypothesis. And I know that I am not the only exception.


Point taken. I should have said that there was a general bias, there are always exceptions.


----------



## rmelly (6 Feb 2008)

Purple said:


> I suggested that it would not be a bad thing to talk about why he left his last job. I did not suggest that he bad mouths anybody.


 
my apologies, I should have said 'reinforce an anti public sector bias'.


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2008)

rmelly said:


> my apologies, I should have said 'reinforce an anti public sector bias'.



That's all right then


----------



## putsch (6 Feb 2008)

The advice to convey a general impression that the current post is not satisfying without going into the details (especially not to raise issues about individuals or polictics) is the right way to go IMO. But I take the point that the applicants head is so "done in" that he's not sure he can hold this line. He should plan and write out how  he will deal with these questions and stick to his script however tempting it might be to download on an apparantly sympathetic ear.

BTW I've worked in both private sector (now) and public sector (previously for many years) and have come across very similar situations in each  - politics, lazy staff and bad management in both - dedicated and passionate people in both also.


----------



## csirl (6 Feb 2008)

Never a good idea to be negative about current job when going for a new job. Remember that the interviewers usually dont know you personally, so you could inadvertantly come across as either a generally negative unhappy person or someone who finds it difficult to fit in.

You are always better taking the approach that the new job you are after is a better one than the job you are leaving and that is the reason for seeking the job. You can always find a reason why it is better e.g. better pay, more suited to qualifications, better prospects, more interesting work, more challenging work etc. etc. etc.


----------



## csirl (6 Feb 2008)

> He should plan and write out how he will deal with these questions and stick to his script however tempting it might be to download on an apparantly sympathetic ear.


 
Yes. Always a good idea to anticipate potential difficult questions that may arise in any interview and plan responses. I prefer writing out a few key words or bullet points on a piece of paper that can be memorised easily and delivered naturally in a variety of ways rather than learning a full script. Always stick to the plan. Remember that the plan is put together after consideration over several days, whereas the instinctive response is put together in a fraction of a second. So as more thought has been put into the plan, it will in 99% of cases be a much better answer than anything decided on the run in the interview room. Dont be tempted to deviate from the plan no matter how tempting it may seem in the stressful interview environment.


----------



## RainyDay (6 Feb 2008)

putsch said:


> BTW I've worked in both private sector (now) and public sector (previously for many years) and have come across very similar situations in each  - politics, lazy staff and bad management in both - dedicated and passionate people in both also.



Hear, hear - Those who know little of the realities of the 'other side' seem to revel in inaccurate trolling. I'm beginning to think that the "don't feed the trolls" approach is the best option.


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2008)

RainyDay said:


> Hear, hear - Those who know little of the realities of the 'other side' seem to revel in inaccurate trolling. I'm beginning to think that the "don't feed the trolls" approach is the best option.


 If that's aimed at me then no fair; I was just pointing out the bias that you people have to put up with. Sure I think yer all great


----------



## Caveat (7 Feb 2008)

RainyDay said:


> Hear, hear - Those who know little of the realities of the 'other side' seem to revel in inaccurate trolling. I'm beginning to think that the "don't feed the trolls" approach is the best option.


 
I think your statement is probably fairly accurate RainyDay but I don't see much evidence of trolling in this thread.  My own comments BTW in the original post just reflect what my friend has said - from his own experience. 

Thanks again to all for the feedback - spoke to the guy last night. His main concern is that his current role required very specific training/quaifications (which he happened to excel in) and to leave after 'only' a year, he feels will look quite obvious to other employers that he simply couldn't stand it. That combined with leaving the security of the sector he thinks will make employers suspicious.


----------



## Gautama (12 Feb 2008)

Caveat said:


> One year in a job rarely sounds good.


 
Not necessarily. If someone is not happy in a job then it's good to leave after one year.  However, if a person has been in six jobs in six years... then that sounds bad.


----------



## ClubMan (12 Feb 2008)

Gautama said:


> Not necessarily. If someone is not happy in a job then it's good to leave after one year.  However, if a person has been in six jobs in six years... then that sounds bad.


Can't disagree with that. One year or some other short stint in a job does not, per se, impute anything untoward. It all depends on how it relates to the overall scheme of things.


----------

