Was leaving your last role your decision, or theirs?

The question is about the answer, not the ending

Recruiters ask this early because the answer determines what else they need to verify, and because how you answer it predicts how you will handle every other uncomfortable topic in the process. Employment endings of every kind are ordinary. Restructures, funding losses, closed offices, project cancellations, mutual partings and outright dismissals are all common enough that no experienced recruiter is shocked by any of them.

What is not ordinary, and what causes real damage, is an answer that avoids the question. Candidates who were let go frequently answer a different question instead: they describe the market, the team's direction, their own wish for a new challenge. The recruiter hears the evasion clearly, because they asked something binary and did not get a binary answer, and from that point they treat everything else you say as needing corroboration. The suspicion of concealment is far more expensive than the fact being concealed.

Answer in the first sentence, then explain

The structure that works is the same regardless of which ending you had: state which it was, give the reason in one plain sentence, say what has happened since, and stop. The explanation comes after the answer, not instead of it.

Ending	An opening that closes the question
Redundancy	"Theirs. My team of nine was cut to three when the product line was discontinued in the spring."
Dismissal on performance	"Theirs. I was not meeting what my manager expected on delivery pace, and after a review period we agreed it was not working."
Mutual departure	"Both, really. My role changed after the reorganisation into something I did not want, and we agreed an exit date together."
Contract or project ended	"Neither, in a sense. The engagement was for the migration and it finished in June."
Resignation	"Mine. I left in March because the platform work I had joined for had been deprioritised twice."

Notice that the word "theirs" appears without hedging where it applies. Saying it plainly is the single most useful thing you can do in this exchange, because it removes the recruiter's main worry within five seconds and lets the rest of the conversation be about your work.

Match the version that gets verified

Whatever you say has to be consistent with what your former employer will confirm and with what a referee will recall. Verification practice varies considerably by country, by employer and by role, and what a previous employer is willing or permitted to disclose differs from place to place, so treat the specifics as something to check for your own situation rather than something to assume. The practical rule is simple regardless: do not describe an ending in terms that a reasonable person at that company would dispute.

That means avoiding two particular reframings. Do not describe a dismissal as a redundancy, because the two are recorded differently and the discrepancy is exactly the kind of thing a check surfaces at the worst moment, after an offer and often after you have resigned somewhere else. And do not describe a resignation you made under pressure as a straightforward choice if there was a documented process behind it. If the accurate description is uncomfortable, use the accurate description with less detail, not a comfortable description with more.

If there was a settlement or agreement on exit, you may be limited in what you can discuss, and the terms of such agreements differ widely. Saying that the departure was settled by agreement and that you are not able to go into the detail is a normal and accepted answer. Say it once, calmly, and do not improvise around it.

Where these answers lose the offer

The most damaging failure is not the dismissal. It is the character portrait of the former employer. A candidate who explains that the manager was threatened by them, that the company was politically dysfunctional, or that the performance process was manufactured, has told the recruiter something about how they will describe this company in two years. It is fatal often enough that it deserves stating baldly: any version of the story in which you are the only reasonable adult present will be read as a warning about you, regardless of whether it is true.

The second failure is length. The longer you spend, the larger the thing appears. A dismissal explained in twenty seconds is a fact on a form. The same dismissal explained over four minutes, with context about three colleagues and two reorganisations, becomes the most memorable part of the screen. Say it, close it, and hand the conversation back with something forward-looking.

The third, subtler failure is the absence of any learning. Recruiters are not looking for contrition, and self-flagellation makes people nervous. But an ending that was in any part about your performance needs one sentence of what you now do differently, expressed as a behaviour rather than an intention. "I had not asked early enough what my manager was measuring, so in my next role I agreed that in the first fortnight" is proportionate and closes the topic. "I have learned to work harder" does not.

Redundancy carries its own small traps

If it was genuinely a redundancy, still be specific, because vagueness turns a clean answer into a suspicious one. Say the size of the reduction, whether it was the team, the site or the function, and roughly when. Where you were selected while others stayed, expect the obvious question about selection and answer it factually — last in, the wrong specialism for what remained, the project you were attached to being the one that stopped.

Where the redundancy followed months of visible trouble at the company, saying so helps you, because the recruiter can verify the context and it moves the cause outside you entirely. And whatever the shape of the ending, have one or two names in mind who would speak well of your work. Offering a referee unprompted is the most efficient signal available that your account of events is the one that will be confirmed.

Say whose decision it was in your first sentence. Every second you spend not answering that question converts a routine ending into something the recruiter now has to investigate.