Two potential job offers, help me choose.

UnixGuy

Job #1: Manager at a consulting firm (big 4)

Pros:
- work is 4 days a week (part time-ish), this help me focus more on the MBA, an other hobbies

- work is very business oriented and away from technical, this aligns well with my career plans

- Work with different customers

- Will be dealing with C-level executives and GMs predominantly


Con:
- Lower pay



Job #2: SOC manager

Pros:
- Get to build the SOC from the scratch, do the hiring, establish processes, ..etc

- A step up for me in responsibilities

- Significantly higher pay



Cons:
- Work in the same office, this tends to bore me after some time (first world problem I know, but I prefer the rush of change)

- I still need to be on the technical side, but not for long

COBOL_DOS_ERA

I say give a shot at number 1, and if some reason after awhile if you feel like naah I wanna go back to technical side. you can always fall back to technical side. I believe at some point you do need to move up the ladder, having # 1 position there is a potential that down the line you could move up to Director level position. I myself move up the ladder as a PM from technical side, and hoping to land a Sr. Manager or Director level job within few years. Stay at the position say for year or two; and then look for same or better position with a better pay with a different company. Having big 4 experience will help with that search.

gespenstern

My vote is for #2. The pay is almost the sole reason (I'll never accept a lower paying job, unless I'm desperate), the rest seems to be worse, except building the SOC from scratch, I did that and it's fun. Provided that there's support from higher management.

dave330i

If you're managing people, you're not working 4 days a week.

JoJoCal19

dave330i wrote: »

If you're managing people, you're not working 4 days a week.

True but Manager at a consulting firm isn’t necessarily managing people. Usually at Big 4 the Manager level denotes the level of work being done. The move from Sr Consultant to Manager usually brings more business and revenue generation responsibilities as well as dealing with higher level of management at clients.

UnixGuy

Thanks for the responses everyone!

Just to clarify, I'll be managing people at both roles, in the big 4 i'll manage consultants/senior consultants/grads


With regards to moving up to a director level, that's definitely the plan, but I can do that with the second job as well moving from manager to c-level...

draught

If money is not your prime motivation then logically speaking job 1# is the obvious choice and path to take. It aligns directly with your career path and with your plans to finish your MBA.

scasc

As what others have said - from a career perspective 1 is the natural and logical choice, the only downside is the money. Can you not negotiate or get an SM role instead?

Choice 1 is for the long run where you know you should catchup from a monetary perspective but you just have to show your worth and be patient - which I am sure you can easily do.

With choice 2 it seems from a work and day to day perspective you may want to look around and quit as it might not be what you want to do. Temporarily maybe, but give it 6 months, 12 months, 18 etc - could be questioning your choice.

EANx

Your long term goals have seemed to be an executive role and I think #1 is that next step. #2 might be more fun but it's not the most direct path to the goal.

LionelTeo

Big 4 may end up burning u out working OT. Is big 4 culture really that good? For option 2, is the soc having a follow the sun model? I will probably take option 2 cause of the money. Also due to less burnout possbility. High tier soc is pretty dynamic as well.

MeanDrunkR2D2

Sometimes one has to take a small step back in pay to move forward in their career. While I'm not at your level I've had to do that to get into that next level so that I could in turn get that experience and in a few years move into that role that will pay you considerably more than your current role. Now, how much less is the pay? And can you and your family survive and keep up your same lifestyle? Option 1 would be the one that would make the most sense to me stating your career aspirations. Option 2 you'll probably find yourself in a similar position as today and you'll keep looking for that next level role. Working for a Big 4 is nice on a resume as well when you get that name recognition for future roles.

10Linefigure

Yea I'd say #2. I've never seen anyone frown on a jetski... so take the pay. Either way you get management exp. And you will get an increase in skill set.

paul78

It does sound like a tough choice - I can certainly see the merits of both. But hey - it's a good problem to have.

Is job #2 in an industry where security is considered an important part of the business? Such as financial services. And is the company a leader and well-known in their industry? If so - I would favor #2. However, with job #1, if it's one of the big 4, your opportunity to network and build useful relationships may be better in the long-term.

Also - when you say that job #1 pays less, are you referring to total compensation? I imagine that in a consulting company, the upside is much better over the long term if you are able to move up.

volfkhat

Okay... gotta ask:

Who are the "big 4" ?

paul78

volfkhat wrote: »

Okay... gotta ask: Who are the "big 4" ?

Back in the old days - it used to be the Big 8 which was Arthur Andersen, Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Ernst & Whinney, Deloitte, Peat Marwick, Price Waterhouse, and PFK.

Most of these consultancies were merged or failed.

In my day - it was the Big 6. Today, it's the Big 4 which are Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

COBOL_DOS_ERA

volfkhat wrote: »

Okay... gotta ask:

Who are the "big 4" ?

Paul just bit me to the answer. Used to be 8, now its 4.

Deloitte
PwC
Ernst & Young
KPMG

DZA_

Deciding on which future job to chose is a very hard situation and it takes a lot of thinking to reach a conclusion to ultimately meet your goal however you want to get there. I was faced with the same issue of whether to stay at my current employer or whether move to my new role that I have now about a year ago (this happened twice). The blurb below benefited me in a sense that I was able to stay with my previous employer, got into a more senior role and had a higher salary + bonus. The second time this came into play where it brought me clarity of hopping into a new role at a enterprise with better benefits and work life balance. The quote below helped me countless times in my career (I swear by it) by removing the emotions from the equation ending with a having a sense of clarity when provided two options:

Ref: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2015/06/24/how-to-make-better-decisions/#7a65f3e1146b
In the first chapter, Decision-Maker: A Tool for a Lifetime, Schulich suggests a simple, but practical, extension to the traditional two-column pro/con decision list.

On one sheet of paper, list all the positive things you can about the issue in question, then give each one a score from zero to ten — the higher the score, the more important it is to you.

On another sheet, list the negative points, and score them from zero to ten — only this time, ten means it’s a major drawback.

If the positive score is at least double the negative score, you should do it — whatever “it” is. But if the positives don’t outweigh the negatives by that two-to-one ratio, don’t do it, or at least think twice about it.

Schulich is a big proponent of the Decision-Maker. He claims it can work for groups as well, describing how it helped in the decision to sell Franco-Nevada to Newmont Mining. In fact, Schulich goes on to say: I have used it for virtually every major decision of my adult life. It has never let me down and it will serve you well, too.

Good luck on your decision UnixGuy.

UnixGuy

scasc wrote: »

..

With choice 2 it seems from a work and day to day perspective you may want to look around and quit as it might not be what you want to do. Temporarily maybe, but give it 6 months, 12 months, 18 etc - could be questioning your choice.

That's what I'm worried about the most. While the money would be good, creating and managing a SOC might turn out to be a mundane task! However, just as the big 4 job, it might lead to bigger and better things down the track.

UnixGuy

paul78 wrote: »

It does sound like a tough choice - I can certainly see the merits of both. But hey - it's a good problem to have.

Is job #2 in an industry where security is considered an important part of the business? Such as financial services. And is the company a leader and well-known in their industry? If so - I would favor #2. However, with job #1, if it's one of the big 4, your opportunity to network and build useful relationships may be better in the long-term.

Also - when you say that job #1 pays less, are you referring to total compensation? I imagine that in a consulting company, the upside is much better over the long term if you are able to move up.

job #2 the company runs a web based service, they're building their security capability. They got government support etc (can't give out more). Everything runs on cloud, there is splunk...quite a modern setup. Security is important. It's not a financial services.

true the total compensation is less, but in the long run (5-10 yrs) there is a lot of potential if you prove yourself.

Difficult choice!

UnixGuy

10Linefigure wrote: »

Yea I'd say #2. I've never seen anyone frown on a jetski... so take the pay. Either way you get management exp. And you will get an increase in skill set.

you are right!

paul78

UnixGuy wrote: »

job #2 the company runs a web based service, they're building their security capability. They got government support etc (can't give out more). Everything runs on cloud, there is splunk...quite a modern setup. Security is important. It's not a financial services. true the total compensation is less, but in the long run (5-10 yrs) there is a lot of potential if you prove yourself. Difficult choice!

Hmmm - yeah - I think this will be one of those situations where you won't really know until 10 years from now .

But that said - if job #2 is a SaaS business with a narrow constituent base, I would likely go with job #1. The opportunity to make relationships and build a business in a big 4 while riskier is usually worth more to me.

UnixGuy

paul78 wrote: »

Hmmm - yeah - I think this will be one of those situations where you won't really know until 10 years from now .

But that said - if job #2 is a SaaS business with a narrow constituent base, I would likely go with job #1. The opportunity to make relationships and build a business in a big 4 while riskier is usually worth more to me.

I think I'm going to go with option #1, the big 4. I'm waiting on the offer from both or I hope I'll get them. Made it to second round and they both promised to contact me soon. I don't think I want an internal job anymore, the prospect of handling more customers and working on a project basis at different places appeal to me more, even if it's riskier with less immediate rewards

DZA_

UnixGuy wrote: »

I think I'm going to go with option #1, the big 4. I'm waiting on the offer from both or I hope I'll get them. Made it to second round and they both promised to contact me soon. I don't think I want an internal job anymore, the prospect of handling more customers and working on a project basis at different places appeal to me more, even if it's riskier with less immediate rewards

I don't think this necessarily plays a part in your selection of picking up the role from the Big 4 but do you see any value that adding the Big 4 to your resume will help you down the road? I personally never had a big firm / enterprise on my resume till last year. The weight alone looks pretty good. But based on the information provided, I think this will align with your long term goals and the challenges (technical/business/people) it will bring working through corporate.

Cheers,

UnixGuy

DZA_ wrote: »

I don't think this necessarily plays a part in your selection of picking up the role from the Big 4 but do you see any value that adding the Big 4 to your resume will help you down the road? I personally never had a big firm / enterprise on my resume till last year. The weight alone looks pretty good. But based on the information provided, I think this will align with your long term goals and the challenges (technical/business/people) it will bring working through corporate.

Cheers,

I'm actually not factoring in the brand name on CV, it's more what I'll be doing (fixing business problems/overall big picture/strategy/cyber risk) is where my career to be heading. Managing and building a SOC is a step up but not where I want my career to be long term

josephandre

Not being snarky, genuinely curious... if you’re not concerned with name cache, why mention “big 4”?

UnixGuy

@josephandre: because I wanted opinions from forum members who may have worked with the same companies? why else?

paul78

@UnixGuy - good luck in the final rounds of interviews. It will be great to see how it goes. I am glad that you are favoring a job with the Big 4. I wouldn't discount having a Big 4 on your CV. One thing about working for a consulting company besides the connections and relationships is that you get exposure to how different companies operate and the various decisions that a company makes regarding risk tolerance. It's really invaluable experience.

Good luck to you.

UnixGuy

thanks Paul! Now the waiting begins...Hope they come back to me before the other company!

snokerpoker

Is it possible to ask job #2 if you can work one day a week from home? That would give you at least one day out of the office.

infosec_darren

Good luck UnixGuy! Let us know when you hear back. FWIW I think you made the right choice. You'll LOVE the 4-day week and having that career goals alignment is so important for the long-term. 

UnixGuy

Thanks!!

Update:

Job #1: they said the outcome of the interview was 'good', they will let me know their decision on Monday

Job #2: Crickets

hoping to get #1 , and get a rejection from #2 lol