Will Joining a Company With a Mediocre Brand Hurt My Career?
A company's brand can influence marketability, but rarely will it destroy it.
June 19, 2019 at 12:54 PM
5 minute read
Q: I received a strong offer from a company. The role is excellent, but the company is boring and moderately successful. Will joining a company with a sleepy/mediocre brand hurt my career?
A: When assessing a job opportunity, there are two important areas of inquiry and examination to help candidates determine the viability of a new position:
(1) How will this opportunity help me move forward in achieving my career goals? (2) How does this opportunity align with my values that are core to my personal and professional happiness?
In your situation, you have a strong offer that includes an excellent role…but the company is unexceptional. So will a company with an average/unknown brand hurt your career and future marketability if you take the job? Does company brand even matter?
Generally speaking, lackluster company brands do not sabotage candidacies in the legal profession if other valued factors are present including: excellent…and relevant experience, strong interpersonal skills, acceptable credentials, good presentation/interview skills, a good reputation etc.
With this said, there are exceptions. In some instances, company brand can play a more compromising role when: (1) joining a company in a vastly different industry than the one you'd like to pursue in the future (i.e. joining a food/beverage or life sciences company when you want to maintain marketability for software or social media); (2) the company is a fierce competitor of the company to which you'd like to apply (especially when they've had contentious litigation); and (3) being affiliated with a patent troll or other negatively viewed entity.
**As a side note, while mediocre company brands won't typically spike a candidacy, a superb brand can enhance a candidacy quite a bit-and is a strong factor when evaluating job prospects.
As you assess the viability and attractiveness of your current opportunity, you'll need to analyze how the position will advance your career, how it will facilitate personal and professional happiness and what negative impact may result from working at this ho hum company. And then weigh your conclusions.
Regarding career advancement potential, answer the following questions about this opportunity:
• Is there a compensation increase?
• Is there a title elevation?
• Is there a more appealing reporting structure?
• Will you manage anyone?
• Will you enhance and/or diversify your experience? If so, how?
• Does the company allow you to transition into a more desirable industry?
• Does the company allow you to move to a more preferred company status (i.e., public,
private, international, bigger, smaller)
• Do you like the culture and the people?
• Do you like the person who would be your boss?
• How important is it to you to work at a “hot, sexy, well branded” company?
• What type of opportunities will this role position you for in 2-5 years? Do these prospects appeal to you?
• Is there a chance this “moderately successful” company could go under, get acquired or undergo mass layoffs?
Next, assess how the aspects of this opportunity align with your values for happiness. If they do, how? Are there any that do not? If so, what are they? Are any misalignments deal breakers or can you be flexible and still preserve happiness?
Finally, think about the company itself. Is “boring” ok if you are in a great role? Are you ok with the risks associated with a “moderately successful” company? Is the brand just “Blah” or does it fit into one of the three exceptions above? If it's an exception, how negative is it when weighed against the career advancement and happiness factors?
After you've gone through this exercise, work through your thoughts again and then take some time away from the issue to let things percolate. Then revisit and go with your gut.
In an opportunity-rich legal market, selecting the right job can be stressful and at times …confusing given all the factors to consider. A company's brand can influence marketability, but rarely will it destroy it. So assess all the factors in front of you…and the clearest choice will emerge.
Julie Q. Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Nothing Is Good for the Consumer Right Now': Experts Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Updated Real Estate Commission Policies
FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Most Noncompetes, but Immediate Legal Challenges Ensue
6 minute readCalif. Employers On Tight Deadline to Comply With New Workplace Violence Prevention Law
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250