To put my career first? Career/Money or Work Life Balance?

[AccountantsDilemma]

I am at a cross roads in my career and I don't know what to do.

I have worked for my current employer for ten years and I am doing well, have worked up through the ranks and chances are I would make it to Partner....but I am really unhappy. I have two young children, no work life balance and feel constantly taken advantage of at work.

As a result I decided to look for a new job and I now have two offers on the table that I am considering.

1. Option one - FD of a relatively small business, only a handful of people in my team, sizeable pay cut from what I earn now, a few miles drive from my home (15 minute commute), no chance of promotion but a genuine 9 to 5 day - I could drop my children off at pre-prep, it would offer a huge lifestyle change.

1. Option two - the career role, large multi-national, senior role, significant pay rise (pay rise alone is almost more than option 1 pays). I did not think I would get this role, I am not sure I could even do this role - I am terrified I would fail. Even if I am good enough then it is an hour commute each way (same as current commute) and the chances are I would put the children to bed on a Sunday night and not see them until Saturday morning.

My heart is saying that I can't continue to not see my children during the week but my ambition is telling me to push myself and take option 2. I don't know what to do and I am really worried about making the wrong choice and resenting it in the future.

Any words of wisdom, past experience or general help would be much appreciated.

OP, I am probably not the best person to give advice, as my career is crap and I willingly cut back to focus on my family. However, you do sound like a high-flyer and genuinely excited about job 2. If you can make it work for you, then go for it. The only warning bell that went off in my head is when you said DP also works long hours and just gets back at bedtime. Ideally, you would want one parent accessible to your kids throughout the week. My best friend had two high flyer parents like this and was essentially raised by her nanny. She hated it and really felt lonely as time went on, especially during her teens. It's affected their relationship to this day. :-(

I would take the job, but also look at ways to move things around so you (and your partner) commute less and balance life a bit more.

Is there not an option 3?
Smug I may be, but I work full time in a demanding job at a director level, and with the help of expensive childcare I get to both see my kids every day and punch at/above my weight at work. I have a short commute but this has involved compromising where we live. I think it's worth it.
Good luck with what you decide, my gut feeling is that to compromise the career stores up dissatisfaction and frustration for the future .

OP I am also an accountant who was doing well but miserable In a large London firm. I took a massive pay cut and took option 1, 13 years ago now.

99% of the time it is the best decision I ever made. Only that 1% is when I see an old colleague who stayed on the treadmill and is loaded now. He has a rather empty life though in his 40s and single with no kids, work is really his sole occupation.

I don't regret my decision at all and now run my own practice flexibly around the kids who are older now.

Personally despite being super ambitious before I had kids, I couldn't not see them for days in a row so for me there is no choice.

How about taking option 2 and moving house closer to work if it works out? I am a firm believer in not staying in an unhappy situation if you have a way out.

I think you should go for option 2. You have good childcare arrangements in place. I don't think your children will suffer. My mum worked when I was small, and vould never come to school assemblies, sports days etc. I don't feel it affected my relationship with her.

When our dc were small, dh worked long hours with an hours commute. The dc hardly saw him ar all during the week, but had all his attention at weekends. No one ever questions fathers having long commutes, not seeing dc during the week, do they?

If you are very career driven, then you need to do option 2 for yourself, especially if you think option 1 wil close the doors to ever doing option 2.

A few months ago I'd have said go for option 2 however recently I did this for a relatively short period of time and it had a profound effect on DS1, who became anxious , withdrawn and stopped speaking (3.5 y). This directly coincided with my increased hours and decreased presence around the house and it has taken 2 months and me giving up work to turn the corner, so now I would say choose 1!!! Don't underestimate how much they need to see you on a daily basis even at that young age. I am in a demanding profession and have always been ambitious but this has been a big reality check and I have accepted that in the grand scheme of things my career will be on hold for a while. Agree with posters above that you never look back and wish you had spent more time at work!

Option 1 without a doubt you are not happy and you're not seeing your children.

Only you know your children best and how they cope with not seeing you,either of you I guess.

I know mine couldn't handle it,I work full time with hours(and money) nothing like yours and I know my dc miss out.That said I and they are pretty happy,1 hates my full time hours and keeps asking me to go part time though.

You only live once and kids are yours for such a short period of time,a serious balance is needed.You don't sound as if you're getting one.

I was a complete high flyer (law), straights firsts, lots of money, huge kudos, rah rah. Then I got pregnant with twins and one was stillborn and the other extremely prem. One solicitor acknowledged it. I realised none of them cared one iota (obvious I know!) If I didn't do the role, there were plenty of others. But no-one else could be my son's mother except me.
So I went back to work quickly, with a marvellous nanny, working 4 days a week, no overnights, very few evening commitments etc etc. I won't reach the heights now, although I do fine, but my son has just brought me up the card he drew for me and I know I have made the right choice.
Good luck with yours!

Everyone is different. In my case family and life balance wins 100%.
My Dh was commuting (to Europe) for over a year due to work during the week. He only saw the kids at weekends. Although the kids always loved him I could see they were less and less interested in him as the months went by. He found a local job earning half what he used to and we are all so much happier.
We do miss not having to think when spending money but it really has been worthed. He is able to do his sport regularly, he is even volunteering in a charity (online stuff), he is able to have dinner with the de every evening, read bedtime stories, go to watch a match at school once in a while.
The relationship with the dc is lovely to behold.
There is no way I would ever trade time with my dc.
Op: could you not hold out for the perfect option? A better paid offer than option 1 but more local to you?

Are you big 4? You may find that option 2 will still give you better work life balance than your current role anyway. Most of my friends who have moved out of big 4 even into senior roles have found the pace markedly less.
you have a lot of good infrastructure sorted with the housekeeper etc which seems to be half the battle.

Firstly, congratulations - nice dilemma to have!

You sound as though your current job isn't giving you the work/life balance that you want, so taking Option 2 isn't going to ameliorate that situation, especially if you won't see your children during the week.

In your situation, with the benefit of hindsight, and if I had had the option of choosing a more local job, rather than the full on international travel filled one I was doing, I would have chosen Option 1. I had to become a SAHM after I had my fourth child as DH got promoted and was travelling a lot, as was I and I just couldn't make things work; I felt I was being a bad wife, mother and employee, trying to keep all of the balls in the air -although it sounds as though you have more domestic support, so you may not struggle as much as I did!

My eldest was 7 when I stopped work - he had been asking for months why I wasn't at home more, why the nanny had to collect from school etc - and his behaviour improved dramatically when I stayed home. If I could have done a role close to home, I would have loved to, but my area of expertise was quite narrow and London based (in the main).

If you do really feel that your ambition and drive comes first then I would say Option 2 - if you really don't think this will come up again, but if you are already fretting about your work/life balance, I can't see how taking that path will improve things. Perhaps take option 1 and gamble that although Option 2 may not come up again, something equally good may in the future!

Good luck!

Depends on your finances.

I chose option 1, but this was after I owned my house outright. I dont regret for a second the less money, as I'm rich in time and not really into buying shit.

Do people really look back at their life and say ' I really regret I didnt spend more time at work'?

No, but some people do look back and which they'd done something more fulfilling with their life, and for many people they get this through their work. It just depends on your job and what self-esteem benefits you get from it.

I also think a lot depends on how much time you spend with your children when you're not at work, and whether that's quality time. When I went from being a SAHM to FT I missed my kids terribly, but it's surprised me how, in a way, the time that I do spend with them feels like more quality time now than when I was at home as I really do seek to give them 100% of my attention. When I was at home they watched a lot of TV, and I'd often be doing housework, or distracted in some way on mumsnet, or somesuch. I guess that's my way of saying there are so many variables it's hard to know which is better!

The local role would give me the chance to see friends, exercise more, live a healthier more balanced life....but I have always been so career minded and ambitious so the change feels huge.

Taking number 1 would be a big change but imo a good one. You will never get these days back with your children. At the end of our life, what will be more important: the fact that you chose a job which you weren't even sure you could do but took the risk for the money and the progression. Or the fact that you chose a job closer to your children and were able to have a better quality of life (with regards to things you listed above). The fact that number 1 came up is just as much luck as number 2. Employing the best nanny in the world doesn't make up for children practically growing up without their mother.

I took option 2. It nearly killed me and I did become quite ill with juggling everything. Felt like super woman one day and the world's worst mother the next. It took its toll physically and mentally.

However, I would say go for option 2. But, if it is too hard then find another option 1.

Having left option 2 I found that family life changed massively and my dc loved having me around more.

Some interesting and insightful comments on this thread. I took option one, my sil took option two (we were career equals). Sil went to the top of the career ladder, I stayed middling. Now children are older and more independent I'm actually back on the ladder and getting to the top rungs.
My sil wishes she had spent more time with dc's and I sometimes got frustrated. Do what will suit you and your family.

I agree with others who say option 2. Because if you don't try it, you will always be wondering 'what if'. Because it will likely open up other options later on. And because in those crappy, frustrated moments when you're bored and annoyed doing Option 1, you will risk resenting the choice you've made.

Give it a shot. Nothing is necessarily for ever. And if it doesn't work out - You can always trade down, but it's harder to trade up.

Hello there
I'm in a similar field, and had to make similar choices over the last ten years. 2 years ago (kids 8,5,2) I choice the option 2, and it almost finished me off. I can't be super woman it turned out and my health suffered. It turns out as your kids get older they need you more rather than a nanny. My kids need to have me around more, they need parenting rather than caring for, iykwim.
So i now do 9-5, 4 days a week, and had a small pay cut as well.
I occasionally think I've settled career wise. But then I couldn't have it any other way as I want my time with the kids.
No one else knows what you are capable of, it can only be your choice. The only point I would make is your kids will need you more over next few years, not less!
Good luck with your choice, it's a toughie, I'm still constantly tempted by good roles but have to be strong to not even loo at them!

I was in the same position as you not that long ago. Did a lot of soul searching and eventually went for option 2. Like others have said career wise the opportunity may not come up again but there will almost always be a chance to "trade down". Luckily, like you I had cast iron childcare in place too which is invaluable. Once in the swing of things it is actually fine! Organisation is key though and you have to let go of any "micro-management" tendencies you may have (both at work and at home) where insignificant things are concerned! Also as someone has said above, make sure leisure time is child orientated but also have time out with your DH. Good luck!

I chose option 1, but I was young and my career didn't really suffer. (I have worked bloody hard to 'catch up' though) I wanted to be with my kids more and see them grow, even though it was a massive sacrifice in other areas.

I guess a few things struck me from your post.

You say you're unhappy now with no work:life balance. Would option 2 increase those feelings?
Feeling constantly taken advantage of by work. Would option 1 or 2 make that issue better?
It sounds as though money isn't an issue for you and doesn't need to be in the equation which is a nice position to be in.
Will option 1 come up again if option 2 didn't work out?

Iv found now my kids are in school nursery and year 1, I need more flexibility. I want to be there for sports day and other school events. I want do their reading and homework with them. Iv chosen to go part time and push my career back.

Lots of women and men work full time and have children but for me if my kids were saying they don't see me enough would be the crunch. In my sons nursery which is also schools afterschool room they had a tree of wishes for Christmas and someone had put up that they wish their mum worked less and was home more. It was heartbreaking. They are only your g for so long and need us.

Thanks for all of the thoughts, I have had another restless night trying to battle between sleep and making a decision.

To address a few of the questions....

Yes, I am lucky enough to not have to worry about the financial side, although to be fair there is the best part of 100k difference between options 1 and 2 and that does have an impact on he way I am feeling, I wish it didn't but it is a lot of money.

I genuinely do not think Option 1 would come up again. I live in a rural area in the northern home counties and the incumbent has been in role for 20 years....it was a real chance of timing that the role came up as I started to look.

And Option 2 is not something I could do after doing Option 1, I wouldn't get an interview for Option 2 if I was coming from doing Option 1.

And yes, I am big 4 so hopefully wherever I go it should be slightly better working hours then I am currently suffering.

We have considered moving back into the city but I loathe to pay 2m+ for a terrace house within a 15 minute commute of Option 2

Sorry, I really am just going round in circles here, but your insights, views and experiences are helping.

If it's work life balance that makes you dislike your current job then wouldn't option 2 leave you with the same feelings once the excitement of the new job wears off?