Notifications
Clear all

Realistic Career Expectations after Taking a New Position

12 Posts
5 Users
0 Likes
79.5 K Views
 PG
(@per-grufmancepheid-se)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 86
Topic starter  

We have had a few people leave the company within a year and sometimes already within 6 months after accepting a position. The reason given for leaving is that they have not received the career development they wanted. Our total turnover of staff is very low but I still find this interesting. What expectations are reasonable to have when you join a new company and how fast should you expect to be able to get for example a promotions?

This topic was modified 7 months ago by Vic Kramer

   
Quote
Dick Woodward
(@dick-woodward)
Member Registered
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 104
 

PG:

The path to promotion, etc. is different at every company. Perhaps it would be useful during the later part of the interview process to discuss the candidate's expectations, and also to discuss the kind of career support, performance reviews and the like that they can expect from the company. This is especially true of the people coming into industry from academia, who are often clueless about what life is like in industry and who may therefore have expectations that are not aligned with reality.

Just some thoughts.

Dick


   
ReplyQuote
Dave Jensen
(@davejensencareertrax-com)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 467
 

PG, is it a generational issue perhaps?

My Dad had a heck of a lot longer career perspective than I do. He was with one company for 40 years or so, got the gold watch and so on. For me, if it didn't work out well, I was gone in 4 or 5 years. Younger generations may have an even shorter time horizon (we need some young scientist comments here please! Not trying to stereotype.)

I think a lot of these expectations are set in the employment process and the on-boarding that occurs. Companies need to a structure whereby newcomers are mentored by older, more advanced team members. There, they can learn more about what it takes and how to get there. I've seen what you describe quite often actually.

Mentors should NOT be the supervisor.

Dave

Dave Jensen, Founder and Moderator
Bio Careers Forum


   
ReplyQuote
Dave Jensen
(@davejensencareertrax-com)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 467
 

The last two responses ahead of mine, from ATF and Tony, really point out that there are generational issues at work here. I didn't want to stereotype the situation, but those comments sure resonate with me. This is what I hear from many scientists -- they are a bit too anxious to await the good things that come with one employer. They want to leave as soon as they see an opportunity to move up the ladder, instead of waiting for that ladder in their present organization, Frustrating to the managers, to say the least,

Dave

Dave Jensen, Founder and Moderator
Bio Careers Forum


   
ReplyQuote
DX
 DX
(@dx)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 223
 

As a younger scientist, I have to say that I don't think any of this likely has to do with a particular employer or "career development" per se. Speaking to others in industry around my age, the fastest way to move up and get salary increases has been to quickly leave a company and jump to a new position. Not a single person is under any illusions that their company/ startup etc. cares about them or wouldn't lay them off tomorrow if it was to their benefit, so unfortunately there isn't much loyalty to any of these companies. Added to that, companies seem to not want to hire or promote much on "potential" as much as current title and the logical conclusion is to move around with increasing responsibilities. Especially with startups too, it just seems to be such a crap shoot that honestly, why wouldn't you jump if somebody offers more money? The "equity" at entry level is a joke most of the time, and all of them just want to work you as hard as they can... no reason to stay with one if somebody else will pay more money.

Sorry if that sounds cynical, but that's the honest feedback I've heard from former post-docs in my group.

Well not to cynical - that is a reality for most of us and i'll put myself into that bucket. They reality is that most times there is a mis-alignment of an employees time horizon for movement vs. that of the employers. Linked to that and root cause is there is differentiated view of employee readiness vs. that of the employer's view of that employee's readiness. Provided the employee is performing well, i.e. meeting their objectives, if not exceeding, the reality is that employee is being trained, getting experience and well sufficient to eventually port. Not every employer or boss is aware, however i did have a boss once plead with our newly formed team.."please give me at least 2 years before you move on and when you're ready to move on, talk to me before" . That was an awesome boss. Alas i moved on - company was acquired in that time frame.

So i've moved from company to company just as you described - getting the outcomes just as you described, is the norm in the industry. Though some are getting smart, I saw one company put in thier job ad a line item about having to be with you last employer for at least 5 years. I'm curious how many applicants they got.

Going to career expectations, unwritten rule, expect the employee expectation to want to be in thier next position by year 3 or close to that. Provided they are performers (documented) and see themselves as such (they know they're valuable externally).

Best,

DX

N.B. is it generational? it's the times we live in, so as a Gen X'er that's still about 20 years or more from age-defined retirement... well that's our reality, unlike my parents, same employer for 30 years or more. Both of them.


   
ReplyQuote
 PG
(@per-grufmancepheid-se)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 86
Topic starter  

Although from a Company Point of view we would like people to stay a bit longer I can see an argument for moving to a new position (not necessarily a new Company) after maybe 2-3 years or at least to have a very clear view about what the requirements are to get that new position and when it is realistic to happen.

Having an expectation to get promoted within 6 months seems like overdoing it since most people are still learning the position that they are in after that time. Also as a hiring manager I would hesitate to hire someone who has been in previous positions for less than a year and especially if there are several short positions.

As for keeping people around we have a target to have a staff turnover below 5% within our group of companies. That assumes that people will stay for a rather long time. Clearly to make this happen they will have to be able to get promoted and grow their careers not only within a single Company but also by moving in between companies in the group. To make this happen we also have high targets for internal recruitments for more advanced position and we are workign very actively with career development plans etc.


   
ReplyQuote
Dave Jensen
(@davejensencareertrax-com)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 467
 

Thanks Andrew -- great post, and a viable suggestion in your last line,

Dave Jensen, Moderator

Dave Jensen, Founder and Moderator
Bio Careers Forum


   
ReplyQuote
DX
 DX
(@dx)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 223
 

Hi Andrew,

6 months? what sector? Sounds like there's two that are tango-ing here. The employee that leaves, and the next employer that hire's them with only 6 months tenure.

The only sector that i'm aware where that could happen where i have a touchpoint is on the 3rd party vendor side - and geography wise, China - a big issue there underlying the myth of lower salaried employees (not true).

Your one year anniversary rentention bonus, is interesting, but what happens 1 month after that bonus pay out? To me, compensation in the form of rention, early in career is not best option - i don't think it works rather its training and development plan in place with a discussion about what needs to be acheived before a promotion.

Is your sector a high-turn over sector? My recommendation is to rather turn the entry position into a contract position - 6 months. Take that bonus and make the monthly salary a tiny bit higher - then you have a negotiating point 4 or 5 months in - cut or keep or renew the contract another 6 months, then an only then move to permanent.

Risk mitigate by keeping a pool of applicants, at some point, you'll find someone hungry and ambition enough to want to stick for a longer period...early in career use development and training as rention. Let the people who want compensation go...cause they'll go anyways.

Best

DX


   
ReplyQuote
DX
 DX
(@dx)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 223
 

Its contract analytical services, so all you need to know is how to work in a lab. We give people their first jobs and train them so they can do whatever they want in 3 years. There is quite a bit of training so its 3 months before they are really productive. I have no problem with 2-3 years, but 6 months is a big investment in recruiting and training. I haven't wanted to hire temps as I believe the pool of talent is weaker and its really not my intention to churn and burn employees.

Hi Andrew,

So the notion is not to hire temps. Rather it’s a contract to permanent process.

There is a lot of this in certain functions in my sector. The person is hired as a contractor say for 6 months, then provided certain milestones are met they can transition to a permanent role. You can have differentiated titles but at least you allow a permanent role to be a carrot. In my area there is plenty of good talent who do take these contracts roles as it’s more of an employer’s market. The upside it’s a test and try period ahead of a probation period that is linked to a permanent role. Perhaps or sectors and markets are different but an idea you can look at to mitigate turn over if that’s a problem in your sector.

Another approach you can do try to identify the key reason folks are leaving and see where you can be more competitive. A lot it’s not about compensation - I was it one company when I first started the industry and salaries were about 20 percent less than market value - but the company had very little turnover due to great company culture as a first and other fringe benefits to include continued training and development - folks were in different roles say every 3 years. Just a fun place to work with a close nit group of folks - the likes I have not seen again in any other pharma company i’ve been in.

Good luck!

Dx


   
ReplyQuote
DX
 DX
(@dx)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 223
 

Hi Andrew,

Very interesting your experiences. I think with our generation it was the idea of "pay your dues" and "earn your way" up. Which meant commitment (this is differentiated from loyalty) - accepting you had to start someplace, role your sleeves up and get it done.

Probably a consequence of feelings of "exceptionalisme" and un-earned "entitlement" - though i don't think I had ever the sense of entitlement to anything (my parents were not rich people - nor am I other wise i wouldn't have to work to live).

Our media has alot to do with it and I can go off here so I'll stop on that.

But lets see, what comes around goes around I think, eventually they'll get a crash course in the real-world when at somepoint that behavior will lead to not finding jobs (who wants folks that jump every 6 months..that's like career suicide if you do that too much).

Good luck!

DX


   
ReplyQuote
 PG
(@per-grufmancepheid-se)
Estimable Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 86
Topic starter  

Although our company goal for retention of staff is a lot higher than what can be achieved if people leave after 2.5 years I can understand that you want to move on after this time if you dont have a good development plan in place.

Having said that staying for two years gives your manager something to work with. Typically most of our development plans during the first 6-12 months are going to be about learning the current job, after that time we have started to get a picture about you as an employee, what your interests are, in what direction you want to develop your career as well as what we think that you can do.

In line with this when I look at candidates for a position if you only stayed 6 months Before getting in Contact with me about a new job I will probably view that as a negative unless you have a good explanation for it. If you left more than one position already after 6 months it will start to be a serious problem.
On the other hand if you stayed in your previous position for maybe 24-30 months I will see you as someone who just want a new challenge. I will probably still ask why you want a new job during the interview but more as a standard question than as something that is viewed as a potential problem.


   
ReplyQuote
(@dapodod938tipent-com)
New Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 2
 

It's essential for new hires to have realistic expectations when joining a company. Typically, career development and promotions depend on various factors, including the company's size, growth rate, and the industry. Generally, expecting a promotion within the first year might be too soon. Regular feedback, setting clear objectives, and open communication with management can help align expectations and give employees a clearer path for growth. It's also beneficial for companies to clarify career progression during the hiring process.


   
ReplyQuote
Share: