Split View: 이직 타이밍을 판단하는 법 — 도망치는 이직과 올라타는 이직을 가르는 질문

How to Judge the Timing of a Job Change — The Question That Separates Running Away From Levelling Up

Introduction — Why "Should I Change Jobs" Never Produces an Answer

People who ask for advice about leaving tend to open the same way. "Work has been rough lately." Then come the stories: the boss, the late nights, the stalled salary, the boring assignments. By the end it is clear that this person is having a hard time. Whether they should change jobs is still unknown.

The reason is simple. "Should I change jobs" is a question shaped so that no answer can come out of it. Two different questions are mixed inside it: is this unbearable right now and is the other side better. A yes to the first does not make the second a yes. Yet when you are struggling, the two look like one lump.

This piece is about breaking that lump into a few questions. It will not push you toward a decision and it will not tell you to endure. But once judgment sits on a standard instead of an emotion, the odds of regretting the choice later drop, whichever way you go.

The One Sentence That Separates Escape From Growth

The first question to throw at yourself is a single one. If that problem at my current company disappeared tomorrow, would I stay. What if the boss moved to another team next week, what if that project ended, what if the late nights stopped.

If the answer is that you would stay, this is closer to an escape move. That is not a criticism. There are situations that genuinely call for escape. But in that case the real problem is not the company but a specific condition, and that condition can be changed by means other than leaving. Conversely, if you would still leave even with the problem gone, that means a separate reason exists that has nothing to do with the present discomfort. Finding that reason is the next task.

The most important row in the table is the fourth. A decision made in a drained state does not pick a direction, it picks an exit. And the exit is usually the nearest door. If you are in a burnout stretch right now, do not put the job decision first, put recovery first. As covered in permission to stop, depletion is a problem of state rather than will, and state changes the quality of decisions.

If the Learning Has Gone Flat, That Is the Signal

If this is not an escape move, the next standard is the learning curve. Learning in a new role generally traces an S. The first few months are slow and frustrating, the next stretch climbs steeply, and at some point it flattens again. That is the stretch where you get used to it, get good at it, get comfortable.

This is exactly the point Charles Handy stressed when he wrote about the sigmoid curve in The Empty Raincoat in 1994. A new curve has to start while the existing one is still going well, not after it has turned down. The trouble is that this is precisely the period when you feel the least reason to change. Results are good, reputation is good, the work sits easily in your hands. Whitney Johnson applied the same curve to individual careers in Disrupt Yourself in 2015, pointing out that the longer the mastery stretch runs, the higher the cost of starting the next curve.

So the thing to ask yourself is not how satisfied you are, but this. What have I become newly able to do over the last six months. If the answer does not come right away, you are probably sitting in the flat stretch of the curve. If three answers come out, then even if the current company is uncomfortable, there is still something left to take from this curve.

One caveat is due. A flat stretch is not by itself a signal to leave. If you can start a new curve inside the same company, that route is always cheaper. A new team, a new domain, a new role. The larger the organization, the more of these options exist, and walking out without trying them means leaving resources on the table.

The Economics of Tenure — The Cost of Short Stints, and the Switching Premium

"People change jobs often these days" is true. US Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows median tenure for wage and salary workers at 3.9 years as of January 2024, down from 4.1 years in 2022, and just 2.7 years for the 25 to 34 bracket. The 55-and-over bracket, by contrast, runs past 9 years. Moving frequently while young is no longer the exception; it is close to the norm.

That does not mean the costs have gone away. Three of them actually occur. First, the onboarding loss. Reaching your own speed in a new organization normally takes three to six months. Move every year and you spend a large share of your career relearning the ground each time. Second, the evidence of your results gets shorter. The accomplishment sentences you can put on a resume are usually the outcome of a stretch of time, and if you plant seeds and then leave, the fruit ends up under someone else's name. Third, the loss on terms. If there is equity, leaving midway through a one-year cliff and four-year vesting structure is not cheap, and severance and leave accrual reset too.

What recruiters actually worry about is not the number of moves but a pattern with no explanation. Three consecutive one-year stints prompt the question of whether this person will leave here after a year too, and when a convincing explanation is attached, the worry usually clears. Legitimate explanations are plentiful in reality. The company folded, the team was dissolved wholesale, the org changed after an acquisition, the contract ended, the move was clearly into a larger role. Conversely, if the explanation is "the people were not great" every time, that itself reads as a pattern.

There is a force pushing the other way as well. The gap between internal raises and switching raises is real. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta wage growth tracker measures job switchers and job stayers separately, and in mid-2022 switchers ran in the mid-8 percent range while stayers ran in the high-5 percent range. That was an overheated labor market. But the more important fact the same tracker teaches is that the gap is not a constant. Entering 2024 the two curves came almost together, and stretches appeared where the switching premium had effectively vanished. It is US data and cannot be transplanted directly to Korea, but the direction is instructive. The claim that changing jobs raises your salary a lot is not a law that always holds but a function of the market cycle. Apply anecdotes from the year everyone was moving to a frozen market and expectation and reality come apart.

The cause of the asymmetry is itself structural. Raising pay inside a company means passing through a merit budget that is already fixed and a distribution of performance ratings, and the result usually stops in the low single digits. When hiring someone new, on the other hand, you have to match the market price to hire at all, so a different budget logic applies. That is how people who stayed long end up earning less than people who just arrived.

Here is the part to look at coldly. Move purely for salary and you meet the same structure at the next company. Whether you will move again in two years when internal raises are back in the single digits, and whether the market will look like it does now, is something nobody knows. What changes the figure structurally is not the move itself but the level, and level rises anywhere on top of a track record you can prove.

Signals That Look Like Good Reasons but Are Not

• One bad manager. An unbearable manager really is near the top of the list of reasons people quit. But a manager is also the variable that changes most often in an organization. Factoring in reorganizations, promotions and transfers, the odds of a change within a couple of years are not low. Put the cost of changing companies and the probability that this person changes side by side.
• Temporary burnout. Solve with a job change what a vacation would have solved, and a larger depletion arrives during onboarding at the new company. Check first whether the same judgment survives after recovery.
• Because other people moved. News that two peers moved on good terms is powerful pressure. But their terms were built out of their situation. It can be a point of comparison, but it cannot be a reason.
• One bad quarter. The weeks right after a review fell short of expectations, or a project got scrapped, are the cloudiest period for judgment. Defer decisions in that window and collect information only.
• Vague boredom. Boredom might be a signal or it might be the flat stretch of the curve. You have to tell them apart with the question in the previous section.

And there is usually something left to try in place before you walk out. The concept of job crafting proposed by Wrzesniewski and Dutton in 2001 fits here. Rather than treating a given role as fixed, you redraw the boundaries, relationships and meaning of the work yourself. Concretely, three things. Explicitly ask for the work you want (assignments differ between the person who said "I would like to take on this area next quarter" in a one-on-one and the person who did not), actually look into the internal transfer process, and negotiate your working conditions. If you tried these and were still blocked, leaving at that point is not an escape, it is a conclusion.

Four Pieces of Due Diligence That Remain After You Decide

Once you have decided to move, the next task is not choosing a company but choosing a seat. Even inside the same company, the experience is completely different depending on the team. Confirm at least these four before you sign.

• The team and the manager. In the final interview stage, ask "could I speak with the person who would be my direct manager?" Refusals are rare, and a refusal is itself information. What to ask about is not taste but operating practice. How often one-on-ones happen, how many people have left the team recently and why.
• The stage of the product. Building zero to one, scaling up, and maintaining call for different capabilities and produce different kinds of growth. Neither is good or bad; the standard is whether the stage fits your curve right now. And ask whether the seat is newly created or a replacement. If it is a replacement, ask why the predecessor left.
• Cash flow. At a startup, asking about the timing and size of the last funding round and about runway is common sense, not rudeness. A company that hedges the answer has given you a signal by doing so. At a large company, look at whether that organization budget is growing or shrinking.
• The success criteria for the first six months. "Six months in, what would I have to have accomplished for you to call it a success?" An organization that cannot answer that concretely is one where expectations have not been settled, and unsettled expectations come back later as a performance review.

What the Last Two Weeks Leave Behind

Many people spend the time after their departure is confirmed in a war of attrition. Their mind has already left, so the remaining work gets done carelessly, and some pour out every grievance on the way out. This is almost always a loss.

The reason is not emotional but structural to the industry. A professional market is narrower than it looks. Today's colleague becomes the interviewer three years from now, or the counterpart at a partner company, or the person a reference check reaches. Reference checks are not a rare step in experienced hiring in Korea, and the person who gets contacted is chosen by the network, not by the company. And returning to a company you left really does happen. The cost of keeping that door open is nothing more than your attitude in the last two weeks.

Practically, three things are enough. Give notice with room, in line with your contract and with custom; leave handover documentation even if there is no successor; and on the last day leave a short note of thanks to the people who helped you. How you leave is the last performance record you leave at that company, and although it cannot go on a resume it is the item that gets talked about the longest.

Closing — Not Whether to Move but What You Are Moving Toward

Stories from people who decided well about a job change have something in common. They talk longer about why they went than about why they left. Regretted moves are usually the reverse: decisions where what they were coming out of was clearer than where they were going.

So change the question. Not "should I change jobs" but "what do I want to become able to do over the next two years," and "can I do that here." Once those two answers are settled, the timing generally follows. If no answer comes right now, that may mean it is not yet time to move but time to find the answer.