Career question

Currently interviewing for a position that is really out of comfort zone--not the job itself, but the company.

It's a company that has a small presence in the US. It has about 200 corporate employees in Asia/Eurasia/Europe, and about 12 employees in the US. They--and their product--have only been on US shores for about 5 years. So far sales and growth have been excellent, and their product is in stores most people here have been into--or at least one of their competitors.

However, the reasons I'm uncomfortable (uncomfortable sounds worse than I mean it) are that it is an unstable industry (high end fashion--$20 for a pair of socks, not even wool) and that it's not US based or entrenched in the US yet.

I don't know anything about this industry (and don't need to for the role). It seems like this is a risky proposition. How many clothing manufacturers do we need? What happens if they pull out of the US? They're stable elsewhere, but how do I figure out if they are/will be stable here? What if they move the US headquarters?

I've worked for 3 companies now, the smallest one was 1500 people and $20B; the largest over 60k employees. I don't speak small company. I consider 1500 employees a small company. Anybody have any words of encouragement or warning?

What do you do? Engineering, marketing, sales?

I'm a software guy, been at my current company 6 years, during which time we've gone from ~ 100 people to around 800-900 now. Small companies are good if you're good -- lots of flexibility, lots more opportunity to make an impact, and to really feel like your contributions make a difference. Of course, there's also more risk and usually less in the way of benefits (vacation time, 401k match, not as good health coverage, etc).

codrus wrote: What do you do? Engineering, marketing, sales?

An oversimplification, but right now I'm in Risk/compliance in the financial sector. The role I'm interviewing for is in finance and sales support; a lot of the day to day sounds similar.

In reply to mtn:

Run away. We're due for another economic downturn - you don't want to be searching for $20 sock buyers WTSHTF.

To expand on that, the size of the company is mostly irrelevant in this case, rather it's their products and market. While it's possibly true the majority of their clientele will also be those least affected by the next downturn, they'll still likely curtail spending somewhat.

Take risks. Be flexible. Small companies can offer more opportunities for growth if you want that. Large companies not so much.

In reply to Pete Gossett:

The problem here is we've been due for another economic downturn for the last 5 years or so. All the indicators are there, but for some reasons the trigger hasn't been pulled.

Mtn - was is the risk/reward here? A significant pay increase? If so, it might be worth the leap assuming you can use the extra income to build up a cushion to prepare for the eventual downturn.

In reply to Pete Gossett:

Yeah? When?

OP, I say do it if you can swing the pay and benefits.

I worked for small companies; 50-75 people. If your pay bumps I say do it. We had crap like this;

"No raises this year guys - the owner is buying out his brother cause they can't get along and he needs a lot of cash for the deal".

Datsun310Guy wrote: I worked for small companies; 50-75 people. If your pay bumps I say do it. We had crap like this; "No raises this year guys - the owner is buying out his brother cause they can't get along and he needs a lot of cash for the deal".

That is a better reason than the owner just bought a new boat.

I've known some small companies that took very good care of their employees, and some that didn't care at all.

Here's the poop. People who change companies every three to five years. Wind up making 50% more than those who do not.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Here's the poop. People who change companies every three to five years. Wind up making 50% more than those who do not.

True, but I've never been able to make that gig work. I was not built for BS, which you need to do this.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Here's the poop. People who change companies every three to five years. Wind up making 50% more than those who do not.

Often, this increase in salary comes at the cost of uprooting your life, and potentially landing in a place where the cost of living cancels out the higher salary. If my memory serves, you experienced something similar after a job change didn't you?

My motto is "I am in it for the money, not your cause" this is a bit harsh, but if things go to hell in a hand basket the company will put you on the curb like a bag of two day old crabs.

I figure that given the size of companies you have worked for in the past, you like and expect a clear definition of your job and parameters to the scope of your job. In a company of only 12 in the US there will not be these firm definitions of role. Are you okay with that?  

With only 200 world wide and 12 US, it would seem to me that this company should not be hiring a US finance person but rather paying for these services to a contracted service. I'm not sure that I would see the need to add an employee for this. Seems if they had or trained someone in the Home Office (Non-US location), that person could cover the US nuances.

Call me pessimistic (and uninformed since I know nothing of the company) but 5 years in and only 12 employees does not seem like stellar growth.

That was crazy...  I wrote this posting on the old board and when I hit send, the board went to the all new format.  I guess the new board has arrived!  

In reply to STM317 :

No risk no reward.  But then I moved back to a cheaper place and kept the same salary.   Gotta keep moving   Keep hustling. Amazon was not the place nor seattle the city. But in those three years away. I came back to the same company I left with an 70% pay jump and three level upgrade.(not bragging just data)  I'm also on the nomadic corporate life train.  I ve never stayed in the same place long enough to really put down roots. Hopefully I'm at a level that I don't need to do this so much anymore.  I'd rather travel than have my family move. No risk. No reward. 

I figure that given the size of companies you have worked for in the past, you like and expect a clear definition of your job and parameters to the scope of your job. In a company of only 12 in the US there will not be these firm definitions of role. Are you okay with that?  

 

With only 200 world wide and 12 US, it would seem to me that this company should not be hiring a US finance person but rather paying for these services to a contracted service. I'm not sure that I would see the need to add an employee of this. Seems if the had or trained someone in the Home Office (Non-US location), that person could cover the US nuances.

 

Call me pessimistic (and uninformed since I know nothing of the company) but 5 years in and only 12 employees does not seem like stellar growth.

 

That was crazy...  I wrote this posting on the old board and when I hit send, the board went to the all new format.  I guess the new board has arrived!  

He did mention sales support, which would be my guess as to what they are really hiring.

"Sales support" is a red flag to me, because it is a HUGE wildcard. You could be traveling weekly with sales people, or you could be copying fliers. Or you could be making logos, or being the executive assistance for 5-10 salespeople all at once.

I've worked for a company with less than 20 emplyees for the past 4 years and love it, so I wouldn't be put off by the size of the company. It seems to me that expensive off shore socks could catch on with some folks, but also could flop. I don't know the expensive sock market, but do know that there is little sense when it comes to fashion and what people are willing to pay.

Are they trying to sell these socks in the US online or are they trying to get them into stores? The answer to that may be insightful in what the job may actually entail.

To answer some questions/things I've been seeing: it isn't just socks, obviously. They have all other clothes too--everything from denim to dress slacks, t shirts to button ups. I was using the socks as an example. 

Sales support would not be worrying. More involved than that, but I don't want to give details here. Not copying flyers.

They have a few retail stores here, and are planning on a few more, but recognize brick and mortar is risky and dying. They're online and on other online stores, as well as physical department stores--Nationwide stores but select markets from what I can gather.

12 employees in 5 years is really 12 employees in 2 years. They handled it out of their WOrld wife headquarters, but it was becoming too much and they needed boots on the ground.

This would be a pay increase or I'm not taking it, same area with a much shorter commute.

Ok, gotta feed the dogs. Oh yeah--I might be able to go home for lunch at this new gig. See my dogs. 

I had worked 9 years for Coca-Cola and then multi year stints for Sprint and then ATT.  All big companies.  

I then got a chance to join a small joint venture between and Austrailian Company and Nextel.  I was the first employee in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Penns with responsibilty for all of them.  I had a previous work buddy who had come on to this company for Michigan and he drew me in.  My hiring manager was in NYC and his boss was in Irvine, CA.  

This was 2004 and this was the advent of  Boost Mobile going nationwide in the US.  I loved the non-corporate culture of the company.  We were an ultra small and ultra lean operation.  We worked hard and we played hard while being very well compensated for growth.  I stayed there for 7 years.  For 6 of those years it was the best job anyone could ask for.  By then end, Nextel had been bought out by Sprint.  In the beginning, Sprint was busy pillaging and ruining what Nextel had built.  In this time period Sprint pretty much left us alone to do what we wanted.  By then end, Sprint had taken over full management of the Boost activites too (and pretty much ruined it.)  

What I am trying to show is I went from huge companies to a much smaller company and loved it.  But, boy, was it difference.  What ultimately killed the "greatness" of Boost was making the place just another large corporation.  I knew it was the begining of the end when new Sr Management uses the phrase, "we love your company culture and we don't want to change it."  The only problem being is that since they are from the outside they do not know the culture so it is very hard for them to not just drive their culture back to what they know and where they come from."  

In the early days of Boost the right thing to wear was a black jeans, Vans and a black company logo T-Shirt with the irreverant phrase of "Where you at?"  The wearing of a knit skull cap all day would be acceptable.  

By the end it was dress shoes, kakhis and a company logo'ed golf shirt (like every other "casual" corporate hack.)  

I had a lot of varried responsibilities in the "small company" but I loved it so much more than the rigid corporations.  

I've worked both for large companies (mega investment banks) and small companies. IME small companies overall offer a better working environment - yes, I've had bad experiences working for a small company also but the positive experiences far outweigh the negative ones. My experience at large companies was much more mixed.

I'd describe a small company (usually) as far more DIY so you *have* to take more responsibility, but usually that is appreciated rather than frowned upon. Usually nobody complains if you "overstep" your responsibilities in order to get E36 M3 done.

Another thing to consider - if you're working for a niche company, you might actually be better off if a downturn shows up because you're less likely to find yourself kicked out to make the numbers look good for the quarterly earnings report.

Boutique industries, no matter what they may be, are the economic canaries that die as soon as conditions turn for the worse.  Unless you are your only dependent, I suggest you skip this.

Right. I wouldn't want anything to do with retail if I was the primary provider. Now, if the missus/partner has an awesome job that is very stable, then ya, I'd work in the fun environment, but if I'm the provider of the household, I'd want the most stable job I could find. 

What is your partner's job like? Pretty stable? No chance of her losing her job regardless of economic conditions? 

EDIT: My BIL went from big corporate (JLL) to a small app-based start-up to work as a Client Relationship Director. One of the biggest issues he's encountered is push back against "corporate-style policies", but at the same time, many of the issues with the company stem from lack of organization and accountability. People use the dysfunction of the smaller company, and the fact that everyone does a little bit of everything to shirk duties and avoid taking responsibility. Policies and procedures get implemented unfairly, with certainly groups required to do things that other groups do not, because those other groups might have a few extra years of seniority and reminisce about the good-ol-days. Some people do well in the free-form "everything to everyone" environment, some people do not. 

So how many of the naysayers have worked for a smaller company and experienced the doomday scenario being put out there?

Staying in a stagnant position can be just as damaging to a career, if not more damaging than making a move that isn't right.  If you aren't growing, either in role and responsibility, or through knowledge of new skills and technology then you are essentially watching your market value depreciate. 

I would recommend going through the interview process, learn all you can about the company and position, and then decide. It maybe that their customer base is one that wouldn't be affected by an economic downturn to the point that they would stop buying the companies products.

If  you go through the process and it feels right then I would go for it.  If you don't like what you hear, you've only lost some time, but will know you did your due diligence .

By the way, I have been through a startup that ran out of money, and within a couple weeks I was working again. Those that can do the work will find employment and land on their feet, and the network growth a new job supplies is beneficial to being able to find employment if things go sideways. 

In reply to jstand :

I've been through it with both big and small companies. The big one was an attrition process that lasted several years, and I knew it was coming. The small one mostly caught me by surprise, although I was already planning my exit - I'd applied for two jobs right before I was let go, and got one of them about 6-weeks later.

Pete Gossett said:

In reply to jstand :

I've been through it with both big and small companies. The big one was an attrition process that lasted several years, and I knew it was coming. The small one mostly caught me by surprise, although I was already planning my exit - I'd applied for two jobs right before I was let go, and got one of them about 6-weeks later.

I was curious how much of the previous  replies were from people's personal experience and how much was based on what they had heard from others. 

Did you end up in a better position?

My experience was positive, looking back at it from where I am now.  At the time there was some stress, but overall I ended up in a better position with higher pay. 

It sounds like the OP might see an upside in quality of life in exchange for the added risk. The shorter commute would help with work life balance, and a salary increase could help fund hobbies to do with the extra time.