Automatically translated.View original post

🛑 A company that's "all good" doesn't exist...

🛑 "all-good" companies don't exist...

(When the working world is a matter of exchange and we all have to find the "break-even point" of happiness)

When talking to a worker or even interviewing a job candidate.

We often hear similar images of "dream companies."

* Salary must be good

* Work must be challenging

* The boss must be good and understand people.

* Colleagues must not, Toxic.

* There's Work-Life Balance

* Work from anywhere

* The Organization must be stable.

* And have to have the opportunity to grow along the way, etc.

"Sounds all reasonable, sir."

But the fact that many people grow up is

"The company that answers all the questions... almost doesn't exist."

And even if there is

It's also often not with us "all the time."

Because the real working world

Not a world of perfection.

But it's the world of "Trade-off."

Or to exchange something.

To get something back.

⚖ïļ Every organization always has a "price to pay."

Some companies pay very high salaries, but in exchange,

â€Ē High levels of stress

â€Ē Long working hours

â€Ē And pressure with almost no Pause button

Some companies have a good culture.

Lovely colleague.

Chief, listen.

But the chances of growing may be slower.

Or revenue may not be as whiz as the market.

Some organizations provide regional or global opportunities.

But you might have to trade for

â€Ē Corporate politics

â€Ē Very high expectations

â€Ē Or a life that is almost indistinguishable from work and personal life.

This is a fact that no one is honest enough.

Working World

It's not about finding the "best place in any dimension."

But it's to find a place

"Worth what we exchange."

At that time of life.

🧠 25 + and 40 +...

Didn't look at "good company" either.

At the age of 25 +, many people may agree.

â€Ē Work hard

â€Ē Come home late

â€Ē Get high pressure

In exchange for leap learning and growth.

But at 40 or older,

What matters may change to

â€Ē Time with family

â€Ē Health

â€Ē Stability

â€Ē Or a non-biting environment consuming daily life force

There is no wrong answer.

Because of "the value of life."

Always change with the timing.

The problem of many people

So it's not a bad company.

But it is to take "the standard of life at another age."

Come to judge yourself today

Finally, it feels

"There's No Place Good Enough"

In fact,

Maybe it's because we ourselves aren't clear that.

Today, "what's most important" for our lives?

🔍 Before asking if the company is good... ask yourself, "What is the reason we are still here?"

This may be a more important question than chasing the ideal company.

Because in the real world

Many times, what makes us stay?

Probably not a big deal, anything.

Could be.

â€Ē A boss ready to protect the team.

â€Ē Colleagues who help each other on tired days

â€Ē Work that even weighs but makes us feel valued

â€Ē Or just income that helps keep the family stable.

These may seem ordinary.

But for many people

It is a very important "anchor" in life.

Seeing the advantages of where we are

So it's not self-deception that "everything's okay."

But it is to understand that

"What do we choose to exchange... to save?"

And when we understand this more clearly,

Many frustrations in working life

Will gradually decrease

🌍 The business world is not responsible for creating a "dream world."

Especially in an era of volatile economies.

The cost is higher.

AI came to change the labor market.

And the competition gets tougher every year.

Many organizations themselves are also in "survival" mode.

The truth may sound cruel, but it's very true.

The organization is not responsible for creating a paradise for its employees.

The organization has a duty.

â€Ē Create profits

â€Ē Maintain competitiveness

â€Ē And take care of people... to the extent that the business still survives.

Understanding this point

Doesn't mean we have to give up everything.

But it allows us to look at the working world.

With a more "real" eye.

Many times...

The suffering of working people

Not just due to bad organizations.

But it could be caused by "utopian expectations."

No organization can answer it all.

📉 If good organizations are rare... workers who "maintain their own standards" are equally rare.

Another very important story

But many people forget to think:

If you're lucky today to be in that organization,

â€Ē Good welfare

â€Ē Good boss

â€Ē Good culture

â€Ē And answer enough life problems

Don't forget...

The organization itself is also evaluating our "value."

Because a good place

Not just us who want to live

But there are a lot of other people

Always ready to replace

If when we

â€Ē Stop developing

â€Ē Stop learning

â€Ē Be a burden

â€Ē Or stay burned out day by day

No matter how good the organization is,

One day he may also need to choose someone who is "more problematic."

This is not mean.

But it's the nature of the competitive world.

The relationship between "people" and "organizations"

So it's not romantic.

But it's a "reciprocal contract."

That both sides are constantly evaluating.

âœĻ Happiness at work... may not be finding the perfect place.

But it could be to find the "break-even point of life."

In the end, none of the companies

â€Ē All good money

â€Ē Fun work every day

â€Ē Chief Perfect

â€Ē All good colleagues

â€Ē And no problem at all.

Like there's no "perfect staff" either.

The working world is not a perfect search.

But it is to understand that

"What are we willing to exchange... to get something back?"

If today what you've got is back,

Still worth what you have to trade for.

Maybe...

That could be "the right company."

For that moment of life,

Because in the end,

We are looking for the best organization for us.

And the organization itself...

Is also looking for the best person for him.

Please everyone find the "break-even point" of happiness in their work.

# Two stories a day

# Career Development

# ExecutiveMindset

# WorkLifeIntegration

# FutureOfWork

# PeopleManagement

# Career Growth

# EmployeeValueProposition

📚 Source / Reference

â€Ē Gallup - State of the Global Workplace Report, which reflects that employee engagement is caused by multiple factors, and that no organization completes all dimensions of employee problems.

â€Ē Denise Rousseau - The concept of Psychological Contracts, or "Psychological Contracts," that describe expectations between organizations and employees, which are often the key factors of happiness and disappointment in work.

â€Ē Gartner - An analysis of Employee Value Proposition (EVP) and Personal Value that points out that modern workers are not just looking at salaries, but looking for value that answers their "life span."

â€Ē Harvard Business Review - A Career Sustainability and Work-Life Integration analysis that reflects that "good work" has no fixed definition, but changes according to the context of each person's life, health, family and goals.

6/5 Edited to

... Read moreāļˆāļēāļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ“āđŒāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§ āļœāļĄāļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĄāļ­āļ‡āļŦāļēāļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āļ­āļšāđ‚āļˆāļ—āļĒāđŒāļ„āļĢāļšāļ—āļļāļāļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āđ€āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāđāļ—āļšāļˆāļ°āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āđ„āļ›āđ„āļĄāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āđāļ•āđˆāļĨāļ°āļ­āļ‡āļ„āđŒāļāļĢāļĒāđˆāļ­āļĄāļĄāļĩāđāļĨāļāđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™ (trade-off) āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļĒāļ­āļĄāļĢāļąāļšāļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡āđ† āđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™ āļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ€āļ‡āļīāļ™āđ€āļ”āļ·āļ­āļ™āļŠāļđāļ‡āļĄāļąāļāļˆāļ°āđāļĨāļāļāļąāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļ„āļĢāļĩāļĒāļ”āđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļēāļāļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™ āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļ āļēāļžāđāļ§āļ”āļĨāđ‰āļ­āļĄāļ”āļĩāđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ™āļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ­āļšāļ­āļļāđˆāļ™āļ­āļēāļˆāļĄāļĩāļ‚āđ‰āļ­āļˆāļģāļāļąāļ”āđƒāļ™āđ€āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡āđ‚āļ­āļāļēāļŠāđ€āļ•āļīāļšāđ‚āļ•āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļĢāļēāļĒāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ„āļĄāđˆāļŠāļđāļ‡āļĄāļēāļ āļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļāļ„āļ·āļ­āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļ§āđˆāļēāđƒāļ™āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ‡āđ€āļ§āļĨāļēāļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ•āđ€āļĢāļēāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļļāļ“āļ„āđˆāļēāļāļąāļšāļ­āļ°āđ„āļĢāļĄāļēāļāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļļāļ” āđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™ āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āđ€āļĢāļēāļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļ§āļąāļĒāļĒāļąāļ‡āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļĢāļĩāļĒāļ™āļĢāļđāđ‰āđāļĨāļ°āđ‚āļ•āđ€āļĢāđ‡āļ§ āļ­āļēāļˆāļĒāļ­āļĄāļĢāļąāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļāļ”āļ”āļąāļ™āđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļ•āļ™āđ€āļ­āļ‡ āđāļ•āđˆāļŦāļēāļāđ€āļĢāļēāļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļ§āļąāļĒāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļ™āđ‰āļ™āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĄāļąāđˆāļ™āļ„āļ‡āđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļĄāļ”āļļāļĨāļĒāđŒāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āđˆāļēāļ‡āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ•āļāļąāļšāļ‡āļēāļ™ āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļĨāļ·āļ­āļāļ­āļ‡āļ„āđŒāļāļĢāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļ™āđ‰āļ™āļŠāļ§āļąāļŠāļ”āļīāļāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļ°āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ­āļēāļˆāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ„āļļāđ‰āļĄāļ„āđˆāļē āļ™āļ­āļāļˆāļēāļāļ™āļĩāđ‰ āļāļēāļĢāļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ„āļģāļ–āļēāļĄāļāļąāļšāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļ§āđˆāļē "āļ­āļ°āđ„āļĢāļ„āļ·āļ­āđ€āļŦāļ•āļļāļœāļĨāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļĢāļēāļĒāļąāļ‡āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāļāļąāļšāļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āļ™āļĩāđ‰?" āļŠāđˆāļ§āļĒāđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ€āļĢāļēāļĢāļđāđ‰āļˆāļąāļāļ„āļļāļ“āļ„āđˆāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļĄāļ­āđ€āļĢāļ·āļ­āđƒāļ™āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ• āđ€āļŠāđˆāļ™ āļŦāļąāļ§āļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ„āļ­āļĒāļŠāđˆāļ§āļĒāđāļĨāļ°āļ›āļāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ—āļĩāļĄ āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļĢāļđāđ‰āļŠāļķāļāļĄāļĩāļ„āļļāļ“āļ„āđˆāļē āļŦāļĢāļ·āļ­āļĢāļēāļĒāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ”āļđāđāļĨāļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļĄāļąāđˆāļ™āļ„āļ‡ āđ‚āļĨāļāļ˜āļļāļĢāļāļīāļˆāđƒāļ™āļĒāļļāļ„āļ›āļąāļˆāļˆāļļāļšāļąāļ™āļĄāļĩāļāļēāļĢāđāļ‚āđˆāļ‡āļ‚āļąāļ™āļŠāļđāļ‡āđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āđāļ›āļĨāļ‡āļĢāļ§āļ”āđ€āļĢāđ‡āļ§ āļ­āļ‡āļ„āđŒāļāļĢāđ€āļ­āļ‡āļāđ‡āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļĢāļąāļāļĐāļēāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ–āđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāđāļ‚āđˆāļ‡āļ‚āļąāļ™āđāļĨāļ°āļœāļĨāļāļģāđ„āļĢ āļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ„āļĄāđˆāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ–āļ•āļ­āļšāļŠāļ™āļ­āļ‡āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļžāļ™āļąāļāļ‡āļēāļ™āđƒāļ™āļ—āļļāļāļĄāļīāļ•āļīāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļŠāļĄāļšāļđāļĢāļ“āđŒ āļ”āļąāļ‡āļ™āļąāđ‰āļ™āļžāļ™āļąāļāļ‡āļēāļ™āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļāđ‡āļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļĢāļąāļāļĐāļēāļĄāļēāļ•āļĢāļāļēāļ™āđāļĨāļ°āļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļ•āļąāļ§āđ€āļ­āļ‡āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđ€āļŠāļĄāļ­āđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļĢāļąāļāļĐāļēāļ„āļļāļ“āļ„āđˆāļēāđƒāļ™āļŠāļēāļĒāļ•āļēāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ­āļ‡āļ„āđŒāļāļĢ āļŠāļļāļ”āļ—āđ‰āļēāļĒ āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļļāļ‚āđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ„āļ·āļ­āļāļēāļĢāļŦāļē "āļˆāļļāļ”āļ„āļļāđ‰āļĄāļ—āļļāļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ•" āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļĢāļēāļžāļ­āđƒāļˆāļāļąāļšāļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļąāļšāđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āđāļĨāļāđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āļāļąāļšāļŠāļīāđˆāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒāđ„āļ› āļ—āļļāļāļ„āļ™āļˆāļķāļ‡āļ„āļ§āļĢāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļāļāļąāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ•āļąāđ‰āļ‡āđ€āļ›āđ‰āļēāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄāļāļąāļšāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ‡āļŠāļĩāļ§āļīāļ•āļ•āļ™āđ€āļ­āļ‡ āđāļĨāļ°āđ„āļĄāđˆāļĒāļķāļ”āļ•āļīāļ”āļāļąāļšāļ āļēāļžāđ€āļ§āļ­āļĢāđŒāļŠāļąāđˆāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļĄāļšāļđāļĢāļ“āđŒāđāļšāļšāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļšāļĢāļīāļĐāļąāļ—āđƒāļ™āļāļąāļ™āļ‹āļķāđˆāļ‡āđāļ—āļšāđ„āļĄāđˆāļĄāļĩāļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāļˆāļĢāļīāļ‡