Related Posts
McKinsey & Company Bain & Company How is MBB's Human Capital Consulting practice? I also have an offer as FAANG Product Manager in the same city with similar compensation. I have 7YOE in risk management at an industry specific (tech) boutique investment bank.
McKinsey & Company Boston Consulting Group Bain & Company
Can someone provide me some insights into the Senior Solutions Developers roles at Amazon AWS? What are expected TC range for remote positions with 10+ years of experience? What kind of questions should I expect during the first technical interview(90 minutes)? Specially for the coding part(20-30 mins) what level of LC questions do I need to prepare for? I already got some ideas about System Design and LP parts however there is not any info out there regarding the coding part for this position.
More Posts
Additional Posts in In-House Counsel
Any book recommendations for GC of a startup?
Ares or Oaktree?
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Tbh I would definitely go for 2. You’re going to learn so much and it may be grueling at times but in 2 years you’ll be able to go anywhere you want
Conversation Starter
Cc1 and A1, thanks for sharing your experiences
To me 2 is a no brainer. A lot more responsibility, direct report to GC, and higher pay. In a few years you could be the GC.
How many years of experience do you have and do you feel like you’d benefit from more training? Personally if I were earlier in my career, I’d take the first option. You might learn a lot more in the fire in the second position but you could come out of it being poorly trained if you don’t see how things work in a company with good processes in place.
100%. If you’re already well established in your career and option 2 could lead to you being GC successor, go with that. If you’re earlier, I’d likely go with 1 if the positions are otherwise generally equal. As a counterbalanced, if you will have lots of access to outside counsel to help fill gaps in your knowledge, that could present a great learn g opportunity.
I’d also think about the health of both companies. Option 1 is likely more stable but 2 could rapidly growing. Look into SEC filings to see if 2 is EBITDA positive. If they’re burning cash and they’re depending on continued high growth, it’s riskier. In these times, I’d personally go with stability, but it depends on your individual financial situation and goals. SEC filings of both companies and analyst outlook for the companies (see Yahoo Finance and SEC Edgar) will provide you with helpful insight into the health of the company and any big issues/concerns. Read news about both companies too, in addition to Glass Door, but I’m sure you’ve already done that
Option 1 will likely give you exposure to a broader network, better training and learning opportunities, but it’s fact specific to the company. That’s not necessarily true if you’re pigeon-holed into a position with rote work.
You will know best on how to weigh these things based upon what you’ve learned in the interview process and research.
I'd take 2. You have a lot more room to grow. You could get stuck in your role for 5 years or more at 1
I would take 2 but respect if you take 1. Nothing wrong with wanting a more easy job experience so you can enjoy life a bit more outside of work.
What's fam life like, e.g., kids etc.? I'd consider that in making a decision. All things being equal, I'd lean #2.
Depends what you want out of life. If you are eyeing a GC role in the future and are keen on climbing the greasy ladder, then option 2 is the obvious pick. But you’ll need to prepare to take the turmoil that comes with that. If you are in house for an easier life, then it sounds like there is more chance of cruising in option 1. And working in large teams isn’t without its benefits if you’re still learning your trade as there will be more people to absorb knowledge from if that’s something you want.
Obviously if you are mostly looking for WLB improvements, make sure you scope option 1 out as being legit on that front.
From experience, scale ups and smaller companies tend to be less well organised, more demanding on turnaround times (because there’s fewer people to pick up the slack), less well resourced both in terms of personnel and equipment to do the job, more likely to have changes in direction when senior management change (a certainty if you are joining somewhere that has some sort of sale or floatation objective) and so on. Hours can be longer if there’s fewer people to spread the work around. Security of tenure worse if your company growth is volatile.
Rising Star
Workload anticipated to be the same?
My gut tells me the second option might be more work. That’s not necessarily a bad thing depending on comp, on what gives you satisfaction, etc. But it would make it a qualitatively different experience, and I think that that difference might be as big a driver for many as comp would.
I’m not exactly sure about the workload but I would assume the second option would be more work since it’s a smaller team and a more recent public company that has fewer processes in place.
Second option. Being able to grow with a team, establishing relationships early on, and developing processes/practices/procedures early on is a great experience
How’s the stock of #2 performing? I would be hesitant to go to #2 if it’s trading below its IPO price (like many recently public deSPACs)
Conversation Starter
I am in this almost exact situation except both companies are a little bigger. Following
What's the TC for both?
What is the leverage for each job (bonus, stock, etc.)? That is how you make money in house. There is an old saying in house, “if you are not the gc and have lawyers reporting to you, you are expendable.” Not always true but something to consider.
2 will be more engaging, 1 you will pigeon hole and get bored
If you are just another number in the department or “bean counter,” probably not. But who knows in this world anymore :)
I would focus more on the now rather than future.