Science Now Backs This Controversial Career Move

The science now backs up what your gut already knew. Most career advice urges persistence. Stick it out. Give it time. Don't be a quitter. But what happens when every fiber of your being screams that you've made a terrible mistake within hours of starting a new role? New research suggests that trusting that instinct and walking away might be one of the healthiest decisions you can make.

A comprehensive study published in November 2025 in the journal Nature Human Behaviour examined 235 separate studies spanning more than 1,400 findings across psychology, health sciences, and social research. The conclusion challenges everything we've been taught about perseverance. According to lead researcher Dr. Hugh Riddell from Curtin University's School of Population Health, clinging to impossible or unsuitable goals can seriously damage your mental and physical health.

Why One Attorney Quit After a Single Day

Years ago, a lawyer named Bill Murphy Jr. accepted what looked like a dream position. It was a six-figure job as an attorney with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington. He'd beaten out hundreds of applicants during the height of the Great Recession in 2009. The salary was substantial. The benefits were solid. On paper, everything looked perfect.

Then came his first day in October 2009. Within hours of attending new employee orientation, Murphy knew he'd made a catastrophic error in judgment. The breaking point came during introductions, when multiple speakers joked about counting down the exact days, months, and years until retirement. One person made the crack. Then another picked it up. Then another.

Murphy realized something crucial about himself in that moment. He does not thrive in massive bureaucracies. The Department of Veterans Affairs does important work, but the culture, the environment, and the mindset were fundamentally misaligned with how he operates. The dissonance was immediate and overwhelming.

He quit after day one. He returned on day two only to resign in person, which he still believes was the right way to handle it. Looking back, Murphy acknowledges he's not particularly proud of the experience, but he remains convinced it was absolutely the correct decision.

The Psychology Behind Letting Go

The recent Curtin University research provides scientific validation for decisions like Murphy's. Dr. Riddell's team discovered that abandoning unattainable or misaligned goals is directly linked to reduced stress, anxiety, and depression. When people successfully disengage from goals that don't serve them and reengage with new, more suitable objectives, they experience restored well-being and life satisfaction.

This builds on earlier work by researchers Carsten Wrosch, Michael F. Scheier, and their colleagues, who studied goal disengagement and goal reengagement in a 2003 paper published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Their research involving undergraduates, young and older adults, and parents of children with cancer found that both processes play vital roles in subjective well-being.

Here's what matters most. Goal disengagement primarily helps by preventing repeated failure experiences and the accumulated distress that comes with them. Goal reengagement, meanwhile, keeps people engaged in meaningful activities that provide purpose and satisfaction. The two work together, but they serve different functions in protecting your mental health.

Dr. Riddell points out that persisting with impossible goals carries real costs. Previous research links stubborn persistence to higher stress levels, diminished well-being, and even physical health problems including illness. The 2025 meta-analysis found that people who successfully adjusted their goals experienced improved social functioning, physical functioning, and moderate to large improvements in psychological well-being, personal growth, and overall life satisfaction.

When Speed Matters More Than Deliberation

Murphy's decision to quit so quickly might seem rash, but it demonstrates something the research supports. If you're absolutely certain a situation is wrong for you, acting swiftly can benefit both you and your employer. The organization had invested minimal time and resources in training him. A fast exit allowed them to quickly move on to another candidate who might find the role genuinely fulfilling.

Here's my honest take: this is where workplace culture often gets it backwards, and it frustrates me deeply. We celebrate grinding it out even when the situation is clearly toxic or misaligned. We've created this bizarre martyrdom around suffering through bad jobs, as if enduring misery somehow builds character. It doesn't. It just wastes time and damages mental health.

I've seen too many talented people waste years in roles that crushed their spirit because they were afraid of being labeled a quitter. The truth is, recognizing an error fast and correcting course immediately is actually the most professionally mature choice you can make. It takes more courage to admit you were wrong after one day than to hide in a comfortable delusion for three miserable years.

Murphy himself admits there's one scenario that might have changed his timeline. If he'd already been a parent counting on that salary and health insurance for his family's survival, he probably would have stayed longer while actively searching for alternatives. But absent that kind of pressing financial obligation, the swift exit was optimal.

What Came Next Proves the Point

Walking away from that government attorney position led Murphy down an unexpected but ultimately more fulfilling path. He quickly took on corporate writing projects, which evolved into a legitimate business. That flexible self-employment later allowed him to relocate to New York within months when he met his future wife. None of that would have been possible if he'd remained stuck in a bureaucratic role that drained his energy and enthusiasm.

The story went viral years later when Murphy wrote about it for Inc. magazine. He found himself on national television discussing the experience. Readers tracked him down on LinkedIn asking whether they should quit their own mismatched jobs. He'd spent far more time talking and writing about that one-day job than he'd actually spent working there.

The experience nearly became a book titled "The Joy of Quitting." Murphy ultimately set that project aside, perhaps finding some irony in starting then abandoning a book about quitting. But the core insight remains valid and now has substantial scientific backing.

Understanding the Research Findings

The Curtin University analysis examined what researchers call "goal adjustment in response to striving difficulties." This encompasses three related but distinct processes. Goal disengagement involves reducing effort toward and releasing commitment to unattainable objectives. Goal reengagement means identifying and pursuing new, more feasible goals. Goal-striving flexibility refers to the capacity to adaptively switch between these strategies as circumstances demand.

The research team identified over 1,400 effect sizes across those 235 studies. They discovered that different aspects of goal adjustment are predicted by unique combinations of factors. Someone's motivation level, age, stress management abilities, relationship strength, childhood experiences, and current health status all influence how readily they can disengage from unsuitable goals and reengage with better options.

Dr. Riddell acknowledges the accumulated evidence quality ranges from low to moderate due to heavy reliance on cross-sectional studies rather than longitudinal tracking, potential publication bias, and high heterogeneity across studies. Still, the patterns are clear and consistent. Letting go reduces psychological distress. Reengaging restores positive indicators like purpose, positive affect, and life satisfaction.

The Career Implications

This research challenges the traditional narrative that quitting quickly damages your reputation and career prospects. Yes, there are risks. Employers may view you negatively. Word can spread in tight-knit industries. You might develop a pattern of bailing too easily if you're not careful.

But here's what nobody wants to admit: staying in situations that fundamentally don't fit carries equally severe risks, often worse ones. Chronic stress accumulates. Your performance suffers. You become increasingly bitter and resentful. That's not a recipe for career success either.

I'll be blunt about this. The entire "stick it out for at least a year" advice is outdated nonsense that primarily serves employers, not employees. It made sense in an era when jobs were stable, pensions existed, and loyalty was rewarded. That world is gone. Companies will lay you off in a heartbeat when it serves their bottom line, yet we're still expected to suffer through miserable situations for the sake of optics?

The modern reality is that your career will likely span 40-50 years across multiple industries and dozens of roles. One quick exit from a fundamentally wrong situation will barely register as a blip on that timeline. What will register is the accumulated damage to your confidence, mental health, and professional growth from staying somewhere that slowly destroys you.

The key distinction Murphy's story illustrates is the difference between impulsive quitting and informed disengagement. He didn't leave because the work was hard or because he had a bad first day navigating normal adjustment challenges. He left because fundamental aspects of the role, the environment, and the organizational culture were incompatible with his core nature and needs.

Practical Wisdom for Your Own Decisions

So how do you know when to cut your losses versus when to push through initial discomfort? The research doesn't provide a precise timeline, but it does offer some guidance.

First, distinguish between normal adjustment struggles and fundamental misalignment. Every new job involves discomfort as you learn systems, build relationships, and adapt to different expectations. That's not grounds for quitting. But if the core nature of the work, the values of the organization, or the basic daily requirements clash with who you are, that's a different issue entirely.

Second, consider your alternatives realistically. Murphy was a lawyer with maintained bar credentials and writing skills. He had options. If you're supporting dependents with no financial cushion and no backup plan, rapid departure becomes much riskier. That doesn't mean you should stay indefinitely, but it might mean a more strategic exit timeline.

Third, handle the departure professionally regardless of speed. Murphy showed up on day two to resign in person despite the discomfort. That demonstrated respect and basic courtesy even while making an unconventional choice. How you leave matters almost as much as the decision to leave itself.

Fourth, reengage quickly with something better. The research shows that goal disengagement alone isn't sufficient for maintaining well-being. You need to redirect your energy and commitment toward new objectives that better align with your capabilities, values, and circumstances. Murphy immediately pursued writing work that eventually became his primary career.

The Bigger Picture on Goals and Well-Being

This research on goal adjustment connects to broader questions about how we structure our lives and careers. Western culture particularly emphasizes achievement, persistence, and never giving up. These can be valuable qualities, but they become destructive when applied indiscriminately.

And frankly, I think we're overdue for a cultural reckoning on this. The fetishization of persistence has become toxic. We praise people for "powering through" situations that are genuinely harmful. We create LinkedIn posts celebrating burnout as dedication. We've somehow convinced ourselves that quitting anything, ever, is a character flaw rather than sometimes being the most intelligent response to new information.

The ability to recognize when a goal has become unattainable or unsuitable and to pivot toward better alternatives is actually a form of wisdom and maturity. It requires brutal honesty with yourself, the courage to admit mistakes publicly, and the flexibility to change course despite social pressure. These are sophisticated emotional and cognitive skills, not signs of weakness or failure.

Here's my unpopular opinion: we should be teaching goal disengagement and reengagement as core life skills, right alongside goal setting. Every productivity guru talks about setting SMART goals and maintaining discipline, but almost none discuss the equally important skill of knowing when to abandon ship. That's a massive blind spot in how we think about success.

Dr. Riddell notes that the next important research question involves timing. When exactly should people stick with their goals versus changing course? How do you avoid giving up too early while also not persisting too long with something that's genuinely wrong for you? Those are complex questions without simple answers.

But I'll offer my take based on both this research and watching countless people navigate these decisions: Murphy's instinct to act within 24 hours was not just correct for his situation, it was optimal. The common advice to "give it at least 90 days" or "stick it out for a year" often just prolongs inevitable departures while accumulating unnecessary damage.

Think about it logically. If the fundamental nature of the work, the organizational culture, or the basic requirements of the role are incompatible with who you are at your core, what exactly will change in 90 days? You won't suddenly become a different person. The bureaucracy won't magically transform. All that happens is you spend three months increasingly miserable while the employer invests more resources in training someone who will eventually leave anyway.

The more general principle is this: once you're genuinely certain a goal or job is fundamentally unsuitable (not just uncomfortable or challenging, but truly wrong), delaying departure primarily serves to maintain appearances rather than improve outcomes. If the core issues can't be resolved, faster transitions typically serve everyone better. That's not irresponsibility. That's efficiency and honesty.

Why This Matters Now

Several converging trends make this research particularly relevant. The pace of workplace change has accelerated dramatically. Jobs evolve faster than ever before. Career paths that looked sensible five years ago may no longer exist or may have transformed beyond recognition. This requires greater flexibility and willingness to adjust goals.

Economic instability since the 2008 recession, through the pandemic, and into recent inflation has created significant uncertainty. People often accept positions out of financial pressure rather than genuine fit. That increases the likelihood of discovering serious misalignment after starting.

Additionally, there's growing recognition that mental health matters as much as traditional career success metrics. Staying in roles that devastate your well-being for the sake of resume continuity or avoiding awkward conversations makes less sense when we understand the genuine health costs involved.

The research provides permission and validation for decisions that might have seemed irresponsible or immature in earlier career advice paradigms. If a job is genuinely unsuitable and you have reasonable alternatives, recognizing that quickly and moving on is often the healthiest and most professionally mature choice you can make.

Final Thoughts

Murphy ended his viral article by addressing whoever eventually got the Department of Veterans Affairs attorney position he vacated in late October 2009. "You're welcome," he wrote. "I hope it's worked out for you." That sentiment captures something important. The same job that was completely wrong for him was probably perfect for someone else who thrives in structured government bureaucracies.

The lesson isn't that everyone should quit jobs after one day. But here's what I believe after years of watching people navigate these decisions: we've created a culture where people are more afraid of being judged for quitting than they are of destroying their mental health by staying. That's backwards, and it's causing enormous unnecessary suffering.

The lesson should be this: when you discover fundamental misalignment between who you are and what a role requires, acting decisively to correct that error is often wiser than grinding it out indefinitely. The new research from Curtin University provides substantial scientific support for that conclusion, but honestly, your gut probably already knew it.

Whether you're facing a similar decision now or simply want to understand career transitions better, remember this. Persistence is valuable, but so is self-awareness and the courage to change direction when necessary. Both the personal stories and the large-scale research point to the same insight.

Sometimes walking away is the strongest, healthiest, and ultimately most successful thing you can do. The fact that it makes other people uncomfortable or doesn't fit conventional career wisdom is irrelevant. Your life, your mental health, and your time are too valuable to waste proving something to people who won't remember your name in five years anyway.