Possible Job Offer - Which would you choose?

[Onyxpurr]

I can't believe I may be in this position...

If you had to choose between these two jobs, what would you choose?

#1. Large company, well-known. The position is high stress working as 1 of 20 other people who do the same thing you do. Pay is good. You would be trained. Good potential for promotion since the company is large. Many areas of career fields to go into. At least 1/2 hour commute. More like 40-50 minutes. Small fish, big pond.

#2. Smaller company, but owned by fairly big company. The position is 1 of 1 right now, but will grow to more like you. Small office, open environment. People seem nice. No documented procedures, but very flexible environment to work in. Setting the way for future. Some room for advancement, but not as large as other. Good pay. 15-20 minute commute. Big fish, small pond.

Of course, everyone has a difference in opinion as applies to their own personal goals. But I just thought I'd put it up because it would just be interesting to see what everyone has to say...

 

[pmonett]

Seems like both positions have their merits. Both pay well, so salary is not a deciding factor.
There is a difference in career choice : in the large company you will get market recognition that can be valuable when you (inevitably) change employers. On the other hand, a small company can be especially enriching, since it is you that has to find the solution to every IT problem (and to some problems that are not IT ones).

Right now, if I had the choice, I would go for a small company. I have worked in that environment in the past, and I really like the fact that people depend on you to further their own work. I like bringing solutions where it counts, instead of being a rather faceless cog in a machine that nobody really recognizes.
Of course, personal responsibility is a risk : I get the kudos when I do good, and I get the blame when anything goes wrong. But somehow, I feel that this situation is much more intellectually stimulating.

I am not really looking for advancement, I prefer having a stable job to support my family. A large company means a risk of outsourcing, and rather meaningless yearly reviews. A small company means that I can really make a difference, and it also makes a "thank you" much more special.

I vote for the small one.

Pascal.

 

[TomKane]

I think the larger one may be the way to go - from my prespective I'm kind of lazy and like the idea that there are 20 other people to share the load. I'm in a fairly big organisation now where we have hardware people to look after the servers - operators to do the overnight batch runs and desktop support to install the software. We also have front line support. I'd be a nervous wreck if I had to do all that plus my job. Option 2 just seems a big undertaking for one person.

 

[mmorancbt]

I address this issue in one of my recent blog entries, titled, Thinking Small For Big Profits. You can get there from my website.

You make a statement in your post that may not really be true. You indicate that the larger company has good potential for promotion due to its size.

In truth, larger company promotions follow a much more rigid time/tenue grid. The promotions in general follow a corporate guideline - which for me was way too limiting. Having worked in a 5,000 person company and a 50 person company, I would always choose the smaller company.

I have written about this extensively and am certainly not the only career "expert" who believes this. But for the producer (you have to guage whether you are a producer - exceptional work, exceptional quantity, great attitude, great communication skills), smaller organizations provide incredible benefits.

Typically
- You work closer with senior management;
- You are less restricted on the project you undertake;
- You are more readily recognized for acheivement;
- you are more likely to be valued for your contribution;


While you can always find an exception, I have made a career in the "small business" market. A small but growing enterprise of 30-200 people is a great career booster. In fact, I know of several executives at large companies who honed their skills, developed their resume at small organizations only to be hired into large corporations at executive levels.

The small/mid-sized market is typically underserviced and rewards productivity much more readily. For 3+ years I have only worked for organizations of less than 200 people and earn 6 figures - primarily working from home and part-time so that I can write. I just landed a client - a very large company - but the deal came through a small-business referral/contact and the great referrals I could provide in the form of company executives - not HR reps.

Just a thought.

Matthew Moran

http://www.cbtoolkit.com

 

[Onyxpurr]

Thank you for your input!! I must admit I've been leaning towards this, it's kind of nice to see what everyone had to say.

Of course, I encourage more feedback anytime!!

Thanks again!!

 

[kHz]

I haved worked for a small company, ~500 employees in 3 different cities; and I have also worked for a large nationwide company (Fortune 350) that had 1200 IT employees alone. Both sizes have pros and cons.

Advancement doesn't occur at a fast rate like you would think at a large company. Also, just because there are 20 people at a large company, sharing tasks, don't believe that everybody will share the same load. Doesn't happen. At a large company you have a greater chance of being laid off than at a small company. More politics at a large company.

At a small company you cannot specialize. At a small company you will have longer hours. At a small company the pay, raises and bonuses cannot compete (usually) with a large company.

It basically comes down to what you want in a job and company.

P.S.: having worked for both, I prefer the small to the large.

 

[chiph]

A lot depends on how well run the smaller company is. I've seen some where the owner is a total jerk, others where the owners couldn't plan their way out of a paper bag. But I've also seen smaller companies where the owners are great to work with, produce a quality product, and know where they want to be.

I've also worked at some larger companies that, while successful, didn't really have any direction, the office politics were incredibly petty, and tended to waste a lot of money. I haven't worked at one where I felt empowered -- it was "safe" employment, just not as fulfilling as it could have been.

My preference would also be for a smaller company, as long as it was well-run. You're generally not locked into one area -- you'll be called on to do many various things, most of which will be interesting (some will not -- perhaps you'll be tasked with keeping the office fridge stocked with drinks). But the experiences that you will gain will be much broader than you would get in a large firm.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[ZoomerZ]

I worked for both and have no preferences but I agree that Big Co recognition on Resume is a plus. I was called for an interview once only because HR person knew "that Co does not hire 'anybody'" and he was wrong because that Co hired me ))
I never got position though...
So I vote for prettier office setting with window!!!

 

[kHz]

Speaking of large companies wasting money. I was sent to Chicago for business and had a long delay and wait at O'Hare Int'l (who doesn't), so I bought a Sports Illustrated ($2.99) to read while waiting for my flight.

I turned in my expense report, with the $2.99 receipt attached. The trolls in accounting said they would not pay for it because it wasn't an allowed expense (magazines). But you can have a meal under $15 without a receipt and they will reimburse you. Just put down an amount in the food column (and how does that make sense?)

So I called up the trolls and explained that I was in Chicago on business, and I would not have had that expense if the company didn't send me there. Went nowhere. So I went over there to accounts payable. Spoke with the accounting troll personally. Nope. So I argue with her. Nope. No magazines. After spending probably an hour in time (on phone and in person) she finally relents and said, "I'll put in under miscellaneous expense" and threw the receipt in the trash.

So the company spent $50 (in my wasted time) because they didn't want to pay $2.99!

 

[DoubleD]

Onyxpurr,

Good potential for promotion since the company is large.

I have not personally found this to be true. Lots of room for movement, but not necessarily the promotions you would like or deserve.

Also, just because there are 20 people at a large company, sharing tasks, don't believe that everybody will share the same load.

Good point here. At a large company, the great performers tend to get lumped in with the average performers because managers are concerned with treating everyone "equally". A small company has less politics and you can be appreciated for the value you add.

Overall, I would say I prefer a small company. More stimulating, more rewarding, greater personal challenge.

kHz,
You went through all that just to get reimbursed for a magazine. Does the company really pay you that little?


I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[Corran007]

i would choose the smaller. i have previously worked for nasa and then several it firms. im currently with a fairly large company in size (1billion in revenue or so) but its IT staff is only 15 people total) even though we seem large, we operate like a smaller one.

if you like really making a difference to a company, go with the smaller one. at the larger your 1 of 20. at the smaller your it, everything you do there will count for something. If you really like learning new things, go for the smaller one. you will be more specalized at the larger, but will be more well rounded at the smaller. Now im not saying you cannot become specalized. We realized we had a need for a dba so i became the dba and have become i think a pretty decent one. Ive learned a great deal about hardware and OS systems since ive been where im at. Also if your like alot of geeks whose people interation skills could use an improvment, you will have tons of interaction with non technical users at the small one. my business comunication skills have incrased a great deal since i am constantly work ing witht the users.


only a few downsides to the smaller. you have no backup. you will proably be on call 24/7 (make sure you ask about it) proably a lower training budget. proably less advancement opportunity. (this has been covered) those are really the only ones i know of.

im never going to work for a large company again if i have my way.

 

[Onyxpurr]

Very interesting view points.

In response to Corran, they have already let me know it would be your normal 40 hour work week. No 'on call' work.

I especially am surprised by everyone's ideas on promotional opportunities. I never worked for a large company, so apparently I've been working under the wrong assumptions.

Thanks so much!!

 

[kHz]

Hey, add in the tax and it was over three dollars! I made quite a bit there. It was the point.

Onyxpurr, I recall you are getting your MSISM. Make sure the small company would value your education and let you use what you learned. The small company I worked for did not use project management or create policies, etc., that you learn and would like to use. Your degree would probably be of more use and more valued at the large company.

 

[lgarner]

Promotions aren't assured in a large company, but I think they're more available. Where will you go in a 1-man IT shop?

In this case, the fact that the small company is owned by a larger one would make it far more interesting to me, aside from the fact that I do like smaller companies more. You might want to investigate how your career path might go into the larger firm when you're ready to move up.

 

[DoubleD]

kHz,
I'm curious. Had it been a magazine of questionable repute, would you still have expensed it? This probably belongs in a separate message, but it seems to me you actually cost the company money by pushing this issue. Your time to argue with accounting, your time to expense the magazine, the accountants time to argue with you, the accounts time to expense the magazine. If the company was paying you well, why would you force your entertainment budget on them?

I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[CajunCenturion]

Onyxpurr, in as much as possible, I would try to get some feel of the people that you'll be working with. Whether they are in IT or not will affect how pleasant the work environmen is.

A couple of other thoughts.
- On the commute, I would factor time, normal traffic patterns, and vehicle operating costs into the mix, and their associated stress components (if any).
- I would not assume that just because you're 1 of 20 means that you have higher stress levels than being 1 of 1.
- What is the relationship between the smaller company and its larger owner? Is it something that larger company is likely to sell off in the near future?

If all things are equal, then I probably would opt for the smaller company, mostly for the same reasons already given by ohers.

Whichever way you decide to go, best of luck, and we'll be here for support, commiseration, or anything else.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[mmorancbt]

Well, I think I was contrarian to many of the post.

I believe smaller organizations have many, many, many more promotion opportunities and pay better than larger companies.

However, that is contingent upon proven value. They are able to, and tend to, watch the books more closely.

It is harder to get lost in the shuffle - if that is your desire.

Having worked for both small and large organizations, I have found that I am compensated, promoted, and appreciated more at the smaller organizations.

Of course, I qualify that with the assumption that it is a small, growing, and forward thinking company. I am not talking about a small, dying, 1970's yellow cubicle company. Startups - should you take the chance - are also not included in this mix.

The only benefit I found with the larger organization is that they had a cafeteria and your dry-cleaning could be dropped at the employee store.

Large company politics is typically more stuffy and less fluid. They have that "form a committee committee so we can determine which committees need to be formed."

I certainly do not believe this is true with all larger companies, but I have also advocated that technologist can create more dynamic career growth at a departmental level for large organizations - rather than in the company IT department.

I am working for a company now where one of the financial analyst is actually more of a technologist - writing applications, specialized reporting, etc. He is the go-to guy for the department. In fact, IT is viewed as more of a hinderance because the manager knows he can get results more quickly through his own captured resource.

That is also where I built my career - avoiding the large company, monolithic IT department, in favor of department level projects and positions.

Just a thought.

Matthew Moran

http://www.cbtoolkit.com

 

[kHz]

DoubleD, why does it matter to you? Let it go.

 

[Onyxpurr]

Thank you everyone.

I like the sense of recognition and challenge that comes from being the only one, or first of my kind, at a company. That's why I made a point of 1:1 and 1:20. However I wanted to get a feel for everyone's ideas on the subject before expressing my own preferences.

The MISM is a good point. I feel there is growth potential for this at the small company as they said I would be the only person in the position to begin with, but that it would grow (and to me that indicates potential for team lead.)

Excellent points everyone!! Thank you!!

 

[SQLSister]

Just to be contrary, I wouldn't choose based on the size of the company. Choose the one with the best people and the most interesting projects. I've worked for good and Bad small companies (and when they are bad they are much worse than the worst large bureaucratic organization) and good and bad large companies/organizations. It all comes down to the people and the project content for me in the long run.

Benefits tend to be overall better at large companies especially health insurance, but they are more standardizeed. You might swing more vacation days at a small company or a compnay car if you are willing toa sk for one which you would never get at a large company, but the health insurance can be not so good or non existant. Depends on what you need at that stage inyour life.

I'm more likely to get an actual office at a small company. I might get more "outside my profession" work to do too like copying 500 page documents to send to the customer because there is no admin support. Politics can be bad anywhere but it is my experience that they are much worse in small companies if you are not a friend or relative of the owner.

Large companies can contain a lot of freedom just like small companies, the secret is to learn how to work the system. Once you understand the local bureaucracy you can always use it to your own advantage.

Overall I've found people treat you more fairly at large companies becasue they have policies to follow. There is very little of the she can take a three hour lunch every day, but you can't stuff in large companies.



Questions about posting. See faq183-874