There's no such thing as a clean slate once you've started work

I am not a fan of Lucinda (one of the unsuccessful Apprentice candidates). While I thought she had some good ideas, she was also enormously irritating and had an uncanny ability to make others want to gang up on her.

But I was intrigued at the way in which her motivation for coming on the show was analysed, both by people commenting on this blog and those within the show. There seemed to be a suggestion that, because she earned plenty of money in her previous job, she somehow wasn't serious about wanting to change course and work for Sir Alan.

Does this mean that no one is taken seriously if they try to chuck in their first, well-paying career and try a different path?

I changed career once, several years ago, though more for convenience than because I felt a drive to leave journalism (this probably explains why I only lasted a year in my new job before swapping back). I didn't find it too hard to make the change, probably because I was moving, albeit briefly, into a related career.

But what happens when people try to swerve from one job to something completely different? There was a rash of stories a few years ago about desk-jobbers retraining as plumbers and electricians, but the whole point seemed to be that there was more money in u-bends than spreadsheets, so no one was suspicious about the movers' motives. Plus most plumbers and electricians are self-employed, meaning that they don't need to go out of their way to convince someone that they are committed to their new vocation.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why commitment is such a big deal in recruitment circles anyway. Jobs for life disappeared some time ago; why then should each side play the commitment game at interview when the interviewee will probably leave for a bigger salary after two years and the interviewer knows perfectly well that, if the economic climate gets too tough, the candidate could face redundancy in months? Better, surely, to accept a limited position on each side where each promises to do the best by each other for as long as possible. This would also make it easier for career changers: as long as they could prove that they could do the job on offer, no one would mind that they'd not spent the past 10 years in the same field.

Anyway, what's your experience in this area? Have you tried to change careers? Did it work? Or are you someone who has hired a career changer?

Update: a recent poll of 4,448 people found that 19 per cent of them think about a total career change all the time, 23 per cent quite often and 33 per cent sometimes. The research was carried out for NHS Careers and Skills for Health, which, in its press release, goes on to worry that people would rather use the internet than a careers advice hotline when looking for information. It then gives a website address which, should you wish to concern them still futher, is  http://www.learndirect-advice.co.uk/campaigns/nhs/

Picture credit: Harvest of History

Comments

[Ms Ferozi]

I am currently seeking work, having been made redundant in February 2008. My experience is that even in the field of accountancy changing from working in one sector to another is not easily done, e.g. public sector accounting to private, or FMCG accounting to financial accounting, and yet accounts is well accounts isn't it?

http://ferozi.blogspot.com

[Frank]

I was a merchant seaman for 11 years, a job I really enjoyed. When I gained my Master Mariner's certificate there was no future - the world was in recession and the merchant navy was in severe decline. I heard my work experience could be useful in law, I checked, and it was. It was a very tough 6 year change over; 3 years undergraduate degree at Cambridge, 1 year at Law School and 2 year articles with a City Law firm. I made partner in a fast 4 years, but tired of the London "grind" after 12 years. For 4 years I have been head of the law department in an international firm in Geneva, who was my main client when in practice.

I agree with Ms Ferozi, these days every one wants a candiate who fits the specification exactly. There are too many HR departments focussing on what is written on the paper instead of on the person, because they then have no risk and many have no confidence in their own judgement.

[John]

For commitment many times they actually mean loyalty. Commitment I give, you pay me and I give you my best efforts to be successful. Loyalty no, for the reasons outlined in the article, I'll leave for a better salary and you won't think twice about making me redundant if things get tough. As long as we both understand this then everything is fine. If you want loyalty buy a dog.

[Ron]

After 5 redundancies from 'big' employers, and at 57, I have had to take one real term paycut after another. All firms are worried about is profit (=greatest income for least expense). Although well experienced and qualified, I now earn about 50% less than I did 20 years ago. Technically, I am a freelance consultant working on short-term contracts. Despite us both knowing when I'll be leaving, employers still want 100% commitment from me, but are unwilling to give it!

[Hannibal Jones]

I agree with ferozi comments - the HR departments today seenm to have amindset all their own to the extent that some fail to recognise experience & expertise if it bit their anatomy and other regions!