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
© 2025 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 AllWhat Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
9 minute readFor Growing Law Firms, Customizable Financing Can Unlock Opportunities
6 minute readThe Rise of Female Breadwinners: Challenging Traditional Divorce Dynamics
4 minute readAn Overview of Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules of Procedure Relating to the Expansion of Remote Trial Testimony
15 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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