How to explain leaving job due to lack of funding?

Question

When interviewing for new position I was basically laid off from my last job due to lack of funding (research related position) but it's not my fault. However I did good work and the lack of funding is out of my control. Should I tell the truth as it kind of makes me look bad like why did you run out of funding was your work no good?

Answer 1

tldr: You should be address the risk of being perceived as a "poor performer"

Should I tell the truth

Yes. Never lie.

as it kind of makes me look bad like why did you run out of funding was your work no good?

You are concerned about the WRONG issue here. Unless funding was your responsibility, it is indeed out of your control and people get fired because of lack of money all the time. That's perfectly normal.

However, the people that DO get fired are often the poorest performers. If money runs out, companies typically have a choice whom to let go and they take this an opportunity to "cut the dead wood". They will find a way to keep their top performers even if money is tight. Your main problem here is that many hiring managers will assume you got fired first because you weren't as good as the others.

The question that you need to answer is "Why me and not Alice, Bob, or Charlie".

In many cases there are good answers to this. Example:

1. A whole department and team was summarily dismissed.
2. There is a change in direction (research or business) and your skillset is not required any more.
3. The funding was tied to your specific position (which is a bit unusual)
4. The whole company went under.

If none of these is the case, and they still kept people around that do similar work, than it's maybe time for a little introspection: what did Alice, Bob and Charlie do, that you didn't? How good was your work really and should you do change something? That would allow you to treat this as a "learning opportunity".

Answer 2

Funding is based on the economy, the politics in your country, and a lot of other factors that have naff all to do with you. Your interviewer probably knows this already. So lack of funding doesn't make you look bad.

You should just say it how it is.

Me and my team were laid off because funding for Research Project X was pulled

I don't know the details around your specific problem, but a short sentence like the above, if it is true, you have no need to worry about.

Answer 3

Many people lose their jobs due to funding issues:

• The company loses a major customer.
• A government contractor loses the competition for the next fighter plane.
• The pizza shop is crushed by a hot new restaurant on the next block.
• A century old company can't change with the times and has to slowly close all their stores.

All those companies had outstanding people working for them. When asked why you left, just tell them. In some cases they will already know the story. In other cases they will have heard this similar story many times. You should be able to explain your situation in a few sentences, without it turning into a rant.

"Due to a loss of funding for the project they had to let some people go. I was one of them"

They may ask a followup question, but many will not, especially if it was clear that those decisions were out of your control.

Answer 4

Many people don't understand how research labs work.

You should definitely tell them you were let go do to lack of funding; but, you shouldn't lead with that statement (if asked). Instead you should indicate

It was a research lab, where the lab is funded by grant money. The Principle Investigator, my boss, is responsible for writing grant proposals; but, like all requests for free money, a lot of them get denied. I don't know why we didn't get enough money to keep all of our staff; but, as the (newest / lower raking) person on the team, when the money ran short, I was cut. That's too bad, because we were doing some pretty interesting stuff.

This clearly shows that it wasn't due to your control; and, it clearly shows that you don't know (beyond the money not being there) why the money ran short.

If you are transitioning to another lab, they are well aware of the culture (and will know you likely didn't even see a grant proposal).

If you are transitioning into non-research business, most people are well aware that you won't be working there if they can't pay you, no matter the quality of the work you supply.

Only a handful of awful people will judge your lab's failure as your fault, especially if you explain you aren't in charge of writing the grants or directing the research. If they pass you over for this reason, consider yourself lucky; it is soul-sucking to work for a person who blames others for items beyond the other's control.