Avoidant Job Change vs. Challenging Job Change
When conducting interviews with developers, it's common to ask why they’re considering a job change. Often, this question is prompted by concerns such as:
- Is the candidate trying to escape something at their current job?
- Or, is the candidate aiming to join our company with a sense of challenge and growth in mind?
In my view, these two questions are different yet fundamentally similar. Here’s why: my definition of job change is as follows:
- If one is content with their current company, they stay. Ultimately, a job change happens because something is dissatisfactory.
Does this mean that changing jobs for self-improvement and skill development isn’t avoidant, or that leaving a job to escape unresolved issues is not a challenging move? These are worth considering.
If there are issues with one’s current workplace, they might contemplate the following before deciding to leave:
- If I get involved in solving the company’s issues, will there be a worthwhile gain for me?
- If these issues are resolved, would I want to stay?
Naturally, few employees completely avoid efforts to improve the workplace. However, if no visible progress results from these efforts, they may begin preparing for a job change, recognizing they can’t individually overcome the company’s limitations.
This brings me to focus on “value.” If I feel a product is worth buying, I’d put in extra effort to find it, even if that means searching multiple places. But if I don’t think it’s worth the effort, I won’t make the purchase.
The same applies to workplace issues. To stay and resolve an issue, one would likely have to invest considerable time and effort. If an issue is severe enough to prompt thoughts of leaving, is deciding not to engage in resolution an avoidant job change? Or is it an intelligent, challenging move that reflects a person who values their own needs and prospects?
Personally, I believe one might decide to change jobs if the following issues remain unresolved:
- The company demands too much from employees without fair compensation.
- This includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects.
- Passive management expects employees to actively resolve issues. If employees are only met with near-blame criticisms in response to their efforts, this is unfair. Problems are rarely solved by one individual alone, and communication around problem-solving should be a two-way process. If either party isn’t open to feedback, communication is likely to break down, and interactions will feel more like announcements than discussions.
- When something feels undeniably off (gaslighting).
- If you’re consistently in disagreement with superiors or management on highly subjective matters, interpersonal conflicts will likely arise, leading to frequent friction.
- In such cases, it's best to avoid unnecessary conflicts and not approach these situations with a confrontational stance.
In Conclusion
Some companies, unfortunately, treat employees as disposable. Meaningful communication is practically impossible in these environments. It’s best for both employees and companies to make clear assessments based on measurable factors and consider future plans accordingly.
If your company is truly open to heartfelt communication and addressing difficulties, then it’s worthwhile to take some time to attempt internal adjustments before deciding to leave. However, avoid pushing too hard toward problem-solving alone. Communication should be mutual, and ideally, it should focus on understanding each other’s perspectives to arrive at solutions rather than forcing resolutions.