Take a job with a company that's not doing too well?

Would you take a job at a company that's not doing too well? I'm in the final round for a job that's a big pay increase and quite a promotion but the company itself isn't doing too well. I'm leaning towards taking it to advance my career and I don't imagine myself anywhere for longer than 2 years anyway. What do you all think, any downsides? It's an ~11,000 employee publicly traded company but it's stock has been in decline for awhile.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

EANx

There's a big difference between a public company in decline and a private company in decline. A public company that's losing shareholder value could still have plenty of money in the bank while a private company in trouble is usually in trouble with the banks. You need to dig a little deeper and see things like earnings-per-share. I'd also suggest taking a look at their 10-K report.

scaredoftests

Yes, there is a downside, what if they go under within 6 months? Back on the road for you. I had that happen to me. It sucks.

ITSec14

Something else to consider...working for a company in decline could mean you are working on a team with a small budget. I experienced this in a previous job. It killed my morale because it was difficult to get things done and hurt my ability to stay up to date with newer technology. There was no training budget and we couldn't afford to get the tools we badly needed.

I would be asking to see previous and current year budgets along with their short and long term goals/objectives.

Legacy User

I wouldn't because what if things get so bad they lay off the new hires first "which is you".

N7Valiant

dmarcisco wrote: »

I wouldn't because what if things get so bad they lay off the new hires first "which is you".

Is that how it works? I would think there would be a greater desire to get rid of old timers who might have trouble adapting to new technologies.

Nutsy

It really depends on the culture of the company. Some places have the mentality, "I've done my time (rotting in my chair), so I have seniority!" A lot of companies use it to **** their turd-muffins. It take a certain kind of company to keep an eye on the bottom line. Thus, they may lay off only people who they think won't hurt the bottom line by letting them go.

If it is a publicly traded company, do the research suggested above. Also, weight heavily on all the soft factors when you interviewed. IE: did it feel like a good-ole boy system, or was it an aggressive culture, and so forth.

blargoe

EANx wrote: »

There's a big difference between a public company in decline and a private company in decline. A public company that's losing shareholder value could still have plenty of money in the bank while a private company in trouble is usually in trouble with the banks. You need to dig a little deeper and see things like earnings-per-share. I'd also suggest taking a look at their 10-K report.

This... if it's a small operation with no cash flow or access to credit, run far, far away if you already know they are on hard times.

blargoe

N7Valiant wrote: »

Is that how it works? I would think there would be a greater desire to get rid of old timers who might have trouble adapting to new technologies.

This is what I have seen before. Or, at my first corporate job, they fired the people that were making the most money irrespective of their value to the company. Which obviously benefitted me, being the young guy at the time.