Lou Adler (best-selling author and performance-based hiring expert) suggested in a recent article that we should apply a “30% solution” when evaluating new job opportunities. He recommends evaluating whether new job opportunities provide at least a 30% increase over other jobs being considered, or the one currently held. This perceived increase can include compensation, but should be mostly made up of job stretch and job growth.

Job stretch is the difference in the scope, size and impact of the new job compared to the others you may be considering, or the job you’re currently doing. Job growth relates to how fast the company and industry are growing and how likely it is that the job will offer more long-term opportunities as a result.

If a job opportunity appears to provide at least a 30% increase (in job stretch, job growth and compensation) compared to other job opportunities, or your current job, Lou views it as a true career opportunity. If it does not appear to provide this much of an increase, it is more likely a short-term tactic which could lead to missing out on longer-term rewards.

What are you thoughts on Lou's "30% solution"? What strategies have you used to decide between different job opportunities? How successful have your strategies been? Was the grass really greener on the other side, or could you have used more information before deciding on that new job?