An ex-colleague raised a question on Facebook a few days ago, asking if it was a good idea to take a job offering twice as much pay, but which would make life miserable relatively.
The overwhelming answer from all the respondants was No, with one clarifying that it was a solid No unless there were financial difficulties to address.
But then again, my ex-colleague is one of the rare few persons who is truly passionate and in love with the job.
Compared to most people, who work in dead-end jobs and only await the monthly payday, the "relatively miserable" bit would be a moot point, since they're already miserable to begin with. I.e., Herzberg's theory X (most people, motivated by money) and theory Y (my ex-colleague) workers.
The problem with the theory X and Y theory is that it assumes that once a person manages some form of stability and financial security, he works towards self-actualisation. But if one takes into account inflation, the increasing price of goods and general costs of living, one can see that a person could chase financial security forever and still remain the same distance he was, decades ago - or in some cases, even further away from his goal than previously.
But finding a job one can love would make work so much easier. And to that end I'm wondering: how much of that is human effort, and how much of that can be attributed to chance? Does the person who seeks a pleasurable job ind it, eventually? Is it a game of opportunity and random encounters of luck?
Regardless, after reading Steve Jobs' speech (the one from 2005), I've decided that I can no longer dawdle and wonder. I have to keep looking, and keep trying.
"Don't Settle."
0 comments:
Post a Comment