Stop Apologizing for Short Tenures
Companies call mass layoffs ‘strategic realignment’ but label your moves ‘red flags.’ The narrative tactics that flip asymmetric power and command premium offers.
Company lays off 12,000 people via Zoom on a Tuesday morning.
Stock goes up 7%.
CEO gets praised for “making tough choices.”
The board issues a statement about “strategic realignment to capture emerging market opportunities.”
Analysts nod approvingly.
Employee leaves after 14 months when the company pivots away from their entire division.
Resume gets flagged by ATS systems.
Recruiters ghost.
Hiring managers furrow their brows and ask probing questions about “commitment” and “judgment.”
Your confidence crumbles.
Same outcome.
People lost their jobs.
Completely different reasons—but both don’t look good for you.
Before we all join hands and shake our collective fists at “the man” in a unified victim mentality pow-wow—we should recognize that many of us are indeed, “the man.” And when push comes to shove, we’d much prefer to be the ones doing the shoving.
However, that’s not always how the cookie crumbles.
The reality is that whoever is on the company side is the one to control the narrative game.
And the house always wins.
While organizations frame mass layoffs as “operational efficiency,” “portfolio optimization,” or “rightsizing for sustainable growth”—you get labeled as a job-hopper, a flight risk, someone who “can’t seem to stick” or simply another, “non-essential.”
Ouch.
The power asymmetry isn’t subtle.
It’s structural, psychological, and designed to protect company reputation while you absorb the career damage.
Over and over and over again.
When Meta cuts 21,000 jobs, the market calls it “disciplined capital allocation.”
When you have three roles in four years because companies keep restructuring your division out of existence, you lose your aircover, or the company simply isn’t what they purported to be—recruiters, hirers, and sometimes even you—whisper about “pattern concerns.”
In employment relationships, companies control access to income, opportunity, status—and crucially, they control who gets blamed when things go sideways.
They get to externalize failures.
You get to internalize explanations that sound defensive no matter how you phrase them.
This isn’t about fairness.
It’s about understanding how the game really works so you can stop playing defense and start controlling your narrative on your terms.
Because the uncomfortable truth is that the system is working exactly as designed—to protect shareholder value at your expense.
Time to flip it.
The Structural Imbalance You Fight
Today, I’d like to introduce to you: Narrative Asymmetry.
It’s the structural imbalance where organizations control how career stories get framed while individuals bear the reputational consequences. It’s the reason your explanation sounds like an excuse while their explanation sounds like strategy.
Three forces create this asymmetry:
Attribution Control. Companies externalize their failures. Market conditions. Strategic pivot. Economic headwinds. Macroeconomic pressures.
These phrases do psychological work—they shift blame away from decision-makers and toward forces “beyond anyone’s control.”
Meanwhile, your short tenure gets internalized as a character assessment.
Poor judgment. Lack of commitment. Can’t read a room. Can’t pick winners.
The same external forces that absolved the company become evidence of your flawed decision-making.
Evidence Disparity. Organizations have PR teams, investor relations departments, and official statements that get reported in TechCrunch and Bloomberg. Their narrative gets published, distributed, and legitimized before you even know you need a counter-story.
You have a LinkedIn post and 45 seconds in an interview to explain why things didn’t work out.
One sounds like an official record. The other sounds like damage control.
Perception Permanence. A company’s layoff becomes a footnote in quarterly earnings. An asterisk in the annual report. “We took decisive action to optimize our cost structure.”
Six months later, nobody remembers.
Your short tenure becomes a permanent resume scar that compounds with each subsequent move.
First one raises eyebrows.
Second one triggers questions.
Third one becomes a pattern that follows you for years.
This asymmetry is simply how power works when one party controls resources and the other needs access to them.
The company that laid you off doesn’t suffer reputational damage in the hiring market—you do.
Understanding this changes everything.
Because once you recognize you’re fighting narrative asymmetry rather than explaining poor performance, you can stop defending and start repositioning.
5 Tactics to Flip the Narrative
Tactic 1: Deploy Narrative Preamble Before They Ask
Don’t wait for “So I see you were only there 11 months...”
Deploy your narrative proactively before they can frame it as a problem.
The psychology: Whoever frames the story first controls how it gets interpreted. If they ask the question, you’re defending. If you introduce it, you’re positioning.
Try this: “I spent three years building my expertise in enterprise AI deployment across three different teams. The differences in approach gave me pattern recognition most people only read about in case studies. I suspect that your team is right in the thick of similar challenges that we faced, ask me anything.”
You’re not explaining short tenures—you’re positioning your knowledge with a growth mindset. Notice the immediate pivot to their problems.
More on details on this strategy here.
Tactic 2: Reframe Selection as Market Intel
Companies call it “strategic talent decisions.” You call it “learning.”
The psychology: When you frame multiple roles as learning rather than survival, you shift the attribution from circumstantial to intentional.
The brain processes choice differently than chance.
The script: “I made a decision to spend time inside three high-growth companies to understand how enterprise SaaS scales from $10M to $100M ARR. You could also say I caught the startup itch—and we both know how that can go! Each role gave me insight into where scaling breaks down. Now I know more about what works at your stage and what doesn’t. Have you tried…”
This repositions you from someone who can’t stick to someone who chose not to stick—completely different psychological framing.
Tactic 3: Use the Aggregation Advantage
Companies don’t explain individual layoffs—they aggregate.
“We reduced workforce by 5%.”
You should do the same thing.
Instead of: Explaining each role individually with defensive details
Try this: “I spent 2020-2024 working inside growth-stage companies to understand how sales operations evolve throughout the scale curve. Some of those companies succeeded, some got acquired, some didn’t make it—but I learned where the sticking points are through several growth stages. That’s likely what the team wants to learn from me, correct?”
Notice what’s missing: Specific tenure lengths. Individual company names. Defensive explanations. Just aggregate framing that positions you as someone who chose to learn rather than someone who failed repeatedly.
Tactic 4: Build Preemptive Social Proof
Companies use PR firms to control narrative. You need advocates who validate your story before interview conversations even happen.
The method: Identify 3-5 people who witnessed your impact at short-tenure companies.
Doesn’t need to be direct managers—could be cross-functional partners, board members, or clients who saw your work.
Have them post LinkedIn endorsements that emphasize specific outcomes, not tenure length—have them on standby for a reference later.
Example: “Worked with [Name] on our enterprise transformation team. In six months, she identified and solved three bottlenecks costing us $2M annually. Her ability to diagnose problems quickly is rare at the executive level.”
These become social proof that reframes your story before you’re even in the room.
When a hiring manager googles you and sees multiple people validating rapid impact, it changes the psychological anchor from “flight risk” to “fast operator.”
Start with 3-5 advocates.
Over time, this compounds—the most sophisticated executives build back-channel networks dozens deep, ensuring their reputation gets managed proactively, not reactively.
Tactic 5: Own Reality Without Apologizing for Circumstances
You can’t spin every situation into gold, and trying to will sound desperate. But you can distinguish between what you controlled and what you didn’t.
Apologetic: “Well, unfortunately the company had some issues with funding and had to make some difficult decisions, so I was part of the reduction...”
Factual: “The company ran out of runway eight months after I joined. I delivered what I was hired to do—rebuilt the sales ops function and closed three enterprise deals—but the Series B didn’t materialize. That’s the risk you take with early-stage companies.”
Or if the situation truly was bad: “That role was a mismatch. I was brought in to build a strategic function but the CEO wanted execution on his specific ideas with no deviation. I don’t do my best work in that environment, so we parted ways. I’m looking for organizations that hire executives to think, not just execute orders.”
Notice what’s different: No “unfortunately.” No “had to.” No weakening language. Just facts about what happened and clarity about what you need to do your best work.
If you can’t articulate what went wrong, you’ll keep walking into the same trap.
Being clear about friction and misalignment isn’t just honest—it’s self-protection. You need to communicate what didn’t work so you can screen for it in your next role.
The executive who can’t explain why a role was a mismatch is the same executive who’ll accept another mismatched role six months from now.
Don’t let that be you.
Learning to communicate your losses isn’t damage control—it’s career optimization.
You’re not spinning failure into success.
You’re owning what you controlled, stating what you didn’t, and being direct about what you learned regarding fit.
The Narrative Game Is Rigged—Play It Anyway
The asymmetry you face isn’t going away. Companies will continue externalizing their failures while scrutinizing your “patterns.”
That’s the game.
But understanding how it’s rigged gives you leverage to play differently.
Stop explaining. Start controlling.
Stop defending your decisions. Start positioning them as compressed learning cycles that create your unfair advantage.
Stop accepting the frame that short tenures equal instability. Start recognizing them as proof you’ve been inside situations most people only theorize about.
The executives who win this game don’t fight the asymmetry—they use it.
They understand that in a world where organizations control official narratives, individuals who can reframe their stories with clarity and confidence become impossible to ignore.
Your short tenures aren’t liabilities.
They’re evidence you’ve seen what actually happens when strategy meets reality. The market doesn’t need another person who can recite best practices from a conference stage.
It needs people who know what breaks, why it breaks, and how to fix it before it does.
That’s your edge. Use it.
And the next time you’re in a position to scrutinize a fellow executive with short tenures? Offer grace.
Remember: many of us are “the man” until we’re not.
Need help applying this? Upgrade to paid for monthly live sessions with Jacob.
Stay fearless, friends.