Ask HN: Is it unprofessional to leave a new job where everything is a mess?

You could be describing my organization. As things progress, our problems are getting worse. I have people under me and around me that I know are leaving an I'm offering them glowing recommendations because their feelings are valid. I'm distancing myself from the company too. You should leave. You've been there long enough to have given it a solid try. One six month stint on your resume isn't a problem and any associations you've made with people you like are likely to feel the same way anyway.

If they don’t like you, they will have no problem getting rid of you. So if you don’t like them, why not the same?

It's absolutely fine to leave. I interview people looking for roles shortly after taking a new job all the time. It's pretty common that the role they were brought on for was not as advertised or there were things like a mass exodus that materially alters their role. People understand that people want to leave bad situations. Be ready to give good reason for why you're leaving and to talk about lessons learned from the time you spent there and you'll be fine in interviews.

Q: Is it unprofessional to leave a new job where everything is a mess?

A: No.

Notes: personally I would have either abandoned it during the first month or at the end of the probation period, depending on severity, otherwise I'd force myself to stick around for the year, so I wouldn't get questions during further interviews for why I stayed there only X months. A "hack" would be to endure until somewhere in January next year and then in your CV write only the years of employment like this:

2018 - 2021 Old boring job.

2021 - 2022 Shitshow job (but don't actually write anything bad in the CV about them, only positives).

2022 - present Awesome new job.

If you write it with the number of months, some (not all) recruiters and hiring managers will get suspicious. I've personally had people (colleagues at previous employers, but also random people at random meetups) tell me they trust people less if they see that on their CV, or even filter out such CVs early as they fear you'll do the same there, even though they had the same situation themselves when I checked their linkedin profiles.

I personally don't care at all about the month range when I conduct interviews, and if anybody brings that up I fight against it, as something I've learned from personal experience is this: most jobs suck, most employers suck, I've had to deal with some, everybody I know has dealt with such; then I switch the subject to what's really important: what can you actually do so we get to hire you.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've run into this in interviews after short stints and most places will allow you to explain without being accusatory up front. If they are, that's generally a red flag for me. I will often explain to recruiters/interviewers that an interview is mutually beneficial and if what is told to me in an interview is not true, or intentionally hidden from me, and the reality of the work situation does not align with my beliefs/expectations/morals/etc after asking a number of people about those things then why should there be any expectation for me stay to meet some hypothetical minimum on amount of time in a role? If I couldn't perform my role within 90 days they'd let me go. Why is the double standard OK?

I've been in trainwrecks where the market really wanted things the company wasn't delivering on as paid for product. And it could have been really great. Great brand recognition, great people - yet a CEO that had in their mind they could do no wrong. I left, and received a lot of flack for it, yet within one year that company divested because they couldn't sell anything then magically I was looked at differently. It's often hard to get a good read on a tech company in a few short interviews. Especially those on the smaller side or startups. But I don't think anyone should stay somewhere that was not as advertised and have to deal with a penalty for a "short run". Being candid about the situation without disparaging the company (as the parent comment stated) seems to go a long way and most good recruiters/interviews will be understanding.