This article's objective is not the usual advice on getting your dream job. The Internet is loaded with ideas on how to do that. Rather, my goal is to emphasis to you how to identify that dream job, in the first place.
Whatever aptitudes, skills and work history you have is what it is. How you choose to market it is how you choose to do so. My question is, are you choosing to market yourself to the right companies? Elsewhere, I've give my list of the most elite of the best companies to work for . Knowing that though won't solve for you the question of the right fit.
Size Matters
Whether or not you've previously weighed it as a consideration, company size does make a big difference in both the quality of your work experience and the standard of success implicit in your employment.
Some people prefer small firms, with a heavy hands-on focus, which provides the opportunity for close, very personal working relationships. The opportunity to not only know your colleagues well, but possibly even to know them all well, constitutes a distinctive work environment. Plus, the ability to really see the fruit of your efforts is possible in a way it is not within large, more impersonal firms.
It is certainly true that big companies aspire to compensate for this cost of scale by attempting to cultivate a team spirit in their various departments and divisions Sometimes there is notable success in these efforts. However, in such a context, your team's accomplishments will always be conditional upon those of other departments and divisions, over whose work and efforts you and your team have no influence. So, even the best intended efforts at such scaled team building can never really capture the immediate and tangible experience of gratification from meeting challenges and achieving success experienced from work at a small company.
However, large firms have benefits that just are not available in smaller businesses. Being larger, there is much more room for advance up the organizational ladder into greater and greater levels of responsibility and personal accomplishment. The size of such firms will provide as well far more opportunities for specialization. At the same time, organizational diversity also allows for lateral moves to change one's specialization, opening new career vistas without sacrificing seniority and tenure.
As many large companies have geographically dispersed operations, they present the opportunity to travel and live in exotic locations, making your work a cultural adventure as well as a business one. Though there are certainly exceptions, generally, larger firms will be able to provide richer compensation and almost always will be able to provide better perks and benefits.
Structure Matters
In addition to the size of a potential employer, it is important to take into consideration its structure and how that will affect your own work experience. At one extreme end of the spectrum are highly regimented, hierarchical firms, with precisely delineated job descriptions and chain of command.
At the other end are companies, such as the video game producer Valve, who embody fluid, adaptive working relationships. These firms are rooted in the dynamism of employee initiative and innovation. Indeed, some of them, like Valve, don't even have chain of command hierarchy. Instead they are premised upon the entrepreneurial spirit of their associates, lateral operational adaptation and an ethos of collegial mutual accountability.
Don't be misled into passing moral judgments on those attracted to one form of structure or the other. The reason that both exist is because different people thrive better in different environments. You have to figure out which is right for you.
Do you thrive best when your tasks are clearly delineated? Do you dislike being sideswiped by problems which you had no idea would be part of your responsibility? Do you feel anxious at the prospect of vague instructions or unclear expectations? Though the more open ended, horizontally structured firms may sound appealing, with their campus like lifestyle, if you answered yes to those questions, you may find such work environments too stressful. All the basketball courts and massages in the world aren't going to make your work life satisfying or successful if you're in a state of constant distress or aggravation.
The inverse set of considerations, though, are equally true: those who feel inhibited by authority, inspired by new challenges and revel in the roughshod work world of endless improvisation are not going to thrive in a button down firm of clearly delineated and firmly enforced processes and responsibilities. The increased security and stability that they may offer, likely isn't worth the price of the organizationally conservative culture. Such people will find their satisfaction and greatest success in the more fluid, flat structured organization, where they will be provoked into creative spontaneity adaptation. These are the companies most likely to encourage and reward such people's boundary defying style of intellectual curiosity.
To reiterate, this is not about right and wrong or good and bad. It's about what works and what doesn't. Different kinds of companies embody different styles and cultures, which are largely a function of their size and structure. Success and satisfaction from your work life rides upon a smart and pragmatic assessment of which set of business practices best complement your own personal dispositions. Hopefully this brief overview helps you better assess what choices of company to work for will offer you the most rewarding work experience.
Whatever aptitudes, skills and work history you have is what it is. How you choose to market it is how you choose to do so. My question is, are you choosing to market yourself to the right companies? Elsewhere, I've give my list of the most elite of the best companies to work for . Knowing that though won't solve for you the question of the right fit.
Size Matters
Whether or not you've previously weighed it as a consideration, company size does make a big difference in both the quality of your work experience and the standard of success implicit in your employment.
Some people prefer small firms, with a heavy hands-on focus, which provides the opportunity for close, very personal working relationships. The opportunity to not only know your colleagues well, but possibly even to know them all well, constitutes a distinctive work environment. Plus, the ability to really see the fruit of your efforts is possible in a way it is not within large, more impersonal firms.
It is certainly true that big companies aspire to compensate for this cost of scale by attempting to cultivate a team spirit in their various departments and divisions Sometimes there is notable success in these efforts. However, in such a context, your team's accomplishments will always be conditional upon those of other departments and divisions, over whose work and efforts you and your team have no influence. So, even the best intended efforts at such scaled team building can never really capture the immediate and tangible experience of gratification from meeting challenges and achieving success experienced from work at a small company.
However, large firms have benefits that just are not available in smaller businesses. Being larger, there is much more room for advance up the organizational ladder into greater and greater levels of responsibility and personal accomplishment. The size of such firms will provide as well far more opportunities for specialization. At the same time, organizational diversity also allows for lateral moves to change one's specialization, opening new career vistas without sacrificing seniority and tenure.
As many large companies have geographically dispersed operations, they present the opportunity to travel and live in exotic locations, making your work a cultural adventure as well as a business one. Though there are certainly exceptions, generally, larger firms will be able to provide richer compensation and almost always will be able to provide better perks and benefits.
Structure Matters
In addition to the size of a potential employer, it is important to take into consideration its structure and how that will affect your own work experience. At one extreme end of the spectrum are highly regimented, hierarchical firms, with precisely delineated job descriptions and chain of command.
At the other end are companies, such as the video game producer Valve, who embody fluid, adaptive working relationships. These firms are rooted in the dynamism of employee initiative and innovation. Indeed, some of them, like Valve, don't even have chain of command hierarchy. Instead they are premised upon the entrepreneurial spirit of their associates, lateral operational adaptation and an ethos of collegial mutual accountability.
Don't be misled into passing moral judgments on those attracted to one form of structure or the other. The reason that both exist is because different people thrive better in different environments. You have to figure out which is right for you.
Do you thrive best when your tasks are clearly delineated? Do you dislike being sideswiped by problems which you had no idea would be part of your responsibility? Do you feel anxious at the prospect of vague instructions or unclear expectations? Though the more open ended, horizontally structured firms may sound appealing, with their campus like lifestyle, if you answered yes to those questions, you may find such work environments too stressful. All the basketball courts and massages in the world aren't going to make your work life satisfying or successful if you're in a state of constant distress or aggravation.
The inverse set of considerations, though, are equally true: those who feel inhibited by authority, inspired by new challenges and revel in the roughshod work world of endless improvisation are not going to thrive in a button down firm of clearly delineated and firmly enforced processes and responsibilities. The increased security and stability that they may offer, likely isn't worth the price of the organizationally conservative culture. Such people will find their satisfaction and greatest success in the more fluid, flat structured organization, where they will be provoked into creative spontaneity adaptation. These are the companies most likely to encourage and reward such people's boundary defying style of intellectual curiosity.
To reiterate, this is not about right and wrong or good and bad. It's about what works and what doesn't. Different kinds of companies embody different styles and cultures, which are largely a function of their size and structure. Success and satisfaction from your work life rides upon a smart and pragmatic assessment of which set of business practices best complement your own personal dispositions. Hopefully this brief overview helps you better assess what choices of company to work for will offer you the most rewarding work experience.
About the Author:
Thomas Ryerson's writing at the Best Companies to Work For blog is an invaluable resource for job seekers and career changers. Also, for those considering a leave from work to undertake an MBA, his article "Is Getting an MBA the Right Decision for You" is a must read.
No comments :
Post a Comment