Fire Your Boss Part 7

Setting Priorities Debbie's realization that neither job was perfect shouldn't have come as a shock. No job is going to be perfect and offer the best of all these factors. It's also unlikely any one job will offer clear advantages over another job in every single one of these categories. If it did there really wouldn't be a choice; it would be obvious which was better. In order to weigh the offers you'll be receiving because of your successful job fis.h.i.+ng, you need to prioritize these factors.

Let's go back to our going - out - to - dinner scenario. Both choices - the local diner and the French restaurant - have their advantages, so you need to prioritize the factors involved to make your choice. If spending less money, for instance, is a priority, you'll opt for the diner. If, on the other hand, having a relaxing dining experience is your priority, the French restaurant will be your choice. You need to go through a similar process when it comes to choosing between job offers. The problem is that many of my clients, and I'm afraid many of you, seem to spend as little time determining their priorities in choosing one job offer over another as in deciding whether to go to the diner or the French restaurant.

Just as we've let false idealism cloud our eyes as to the purpose work should serve in our lives, we've let it cloud our eyes as to what our priorities should be in choosing one job offer over another. If you continue to believe work is an end in itself, and that the psychological rewards you receive from it are more important than any material rewards, you're going to place a priority on those factors that seem to offer psychological value. On the other hand, if you accept, as I've been urging, that work is simply a means to an end, and that therefore the material rewards it offers are the most valuable, you'll place priority on an entirely different set of factors. Since you'll be getting emotional, psychological, and spiritual rewards from your personal life, you won't need to get them from your work life, and as a result, some of the factors that used to loom large should no longer matter as much.

And just as we've let others determine our work futures, we've let them convince us what our priorities should be. It's the role of a company to be as profitable as possible. Part of its effort to maximize profits is to increase efficiency. While there are lots of ways to do that, the most common is to get as much work from employees as possible, while paying them as little as possible. In that effort, companies have worked hard to offer "psychic" as opposed to financial rewards to employees, knowing that doing so is in the company's best interest. For instance, it costs nothing to give an employee a fancy t.i.tle, but giving him a raise impacts the bottom line. Similarly, companies do everything they can to get employees to work longer hours without paying more money. Some simply issue threats, covertly or overtly, saying the extended hours are a requirement for keeping your job. Others are more subtle and sophisticated, and try to make the workplace as much like home as possible and coming in early and staying late at the job as convenient as possible. These efforts fit neatly into the mind-set that you live to work, and that your ident.i.ty is wrapped up in your job. Abandon those notions and these efforts lose their power over you.

Factors That Are No Longer Important Whenever I go over the list of factors that I believe are no longer important in selecting one job offer over another, my clients' jaws drop. That's because, as you'll see, many of these unimportant factors are exactly those that are most touted by employers and employees alike as being what makes a wonderful place to work. That proves my point. I think it's more important for home to be a wonderful place to live than for your job to be a wonderful place to work.

Amenities. I'm always amazed at the extent to which some companies will go to bring their employees in early and keep them there late. Company gyms, cafeterias, and day-care centers are all terrific for people who want to spend most of their lives in the office or at the plant. But you want to spend as much time at home as you can. As a result, these amenities will actually interfere with your goals. The same goes for the concierge-type services being offered by cutting-edge firms today. If the company will pick up your dry cleaning and prescriptions for you, you'll end up staying later than you should. Remember: the goal is to separate your work and your personal lives, not blur them into one. Whenever there's a blurring of that line, work wins out over life.

Auto. Company cars benefit the company, not the employee. They are issued only when it makes more financial sense for the company to lease a fleet of vehicles than to reimburse employees for use of their own vehicles. Using your own car for work needn't be a burden. Auto leases allow people to obtain use of late-model cars for less money than it costs to buy them. Expenses incurred by the business use of your car that aren't reimbursed by your employer can be used as a deduction on your income tax return. The only purpose served by your getting a company car is that it makes you feel more important and valued.

Challenging. I get a lot of reflexive resistance from clients when I tell them a job's being challenging isn't an important factor. "But it's important to me to be challenged," is the usual first response. Followed by, "If I'm going to be working long hours I'll need to be motivated." I agree it's important to have challenges in life...but they don't need to come from work. G.o.d knows raising a child is a challenge. So is renovating a bathroom. Hiking the Appalachian Trail is a physical challenge...and reading James Joyce is an intellectual one. Thinking your challenges must come from work is indicative of old-style thinking. Stop living to work and start working to live. Similarly, you don't need challenges to keep all those hours at work interesting, because you won't be spending all those hours at work anymore. By focusing on helping your boss meet his or her needs you'll earn the freedom to spend less time at work and more time at home...where you'll find all the really rewarding challenges in life.

Culture. I'll admit that, all other things being equal, it would be better to work for a company of whose values you approve. But it certainly should not be a deciding factor in choosing one job over another. Placing a high priority on a company's culture says to me that you're still viewing yourself as an employee first and an individual second. There are horrible people who work for Ben & Jerry's and wonderful people who work for Philip Morris. And there are wonderful people at Ben & Jerry's and horrible people at Philip Morris. Where people choose to work has no bearing on what type of people they are. I'd suggest you don't get wrapped up arguing corporate morality either. Philip Morris does make products that can give people cancer. But Ben & Jerry's makes products that can make people obese, which could lead to fatal heart attacks. As long as you're doing honest work it doesn't matter for whom you do it. The place to express your values is in your personal life. Lead a good life, that's what matters. There's nothing contradictory about working at Anheuser-Busch and being an active member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. You are not your job and your job is not you.

Environment. The only environmental issue I think should enter into your decision-making process when choosing one job offer over another is safety. If your life will be in danger at one of the workplaces under consideration, scratch it off your list. Otherwise you should ignore your surroundings. Don't get me wrong: it's nicer to work in a lovely bright private office with windows overlooking a magnificent mountain range than in a dark interior cubicle piled high with boxes. But that shouldn't be a factor in your choice. Employers create pleasant work environments, not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they think it will keep you at your desk longer and/or improve your work. The more homelike your workplace, the more time you'll spend there. I believe the opposite is true as well. The more businesslike your workplace, the less time you'll work there and the more time you'll spend at home. That's why I encourage my clients not to personalize their work s.p.a.ces. I don't think you should have anything in your work s.p.a.ce that you couldn't carry home with you in your briefcase or shoulder bag at the end of the day. Resist the urge to put down psychological or physical roots in the workplace. I've actually encouraged clients who were long-term employees at a prior employer to bring every trace of themselves home every night - packing up the family photo on their desk and their coffee cup. I'm trying to reinforce that a workplace isn't a haven and it shouldn't be a home.

Expense allowance. I've never understood clients who viewed expense allowances as a positive factor in a job offer. The two most common allowances I've run across in my practice are companies that offer their outside salespeople a certain amount each month as an automobile allowance, and media companies that offer their executives a monthly stipend for clothing. For some reason, clients see these as being bonuses piled on top of their salary. In reality, I think they're indicative of an employer's efforts to control an employee's life. The employer is saying you can have this money as long as you spend it on something of which I approve and that benefits the company. If it's important for you to have a car for business, and the company is willing to spend, say, $500 a month on an auto allowance, it should simply add that $500 into your monthly salary and leave it to you to decide how much you need to spend on transportation. So, far from being important positive factors, I see expense allowances as warning signs of controlling employers. I've never understood clients who viewed expense allowances as a positive factor in a job offer. The two most common allowances I've run across in my practice are companies that offer their outside salespeople a certain amount each month as an automobile allowance, and media companies that offer their executives a monthly stipend for clothing. For some reason, clients see these as being bonuses piled on top of their salary. In reality, I think they're indicative of an employer's efforts to control an employee's life. The employer is saying you can have this money as long as you spend it on something of which I approve and that benefits the company. If it's important for you to have a car for business, and the company is willing to spend, say, $500 a month on an auto allowance, it should simply add that $500 into your monthly salary and leave it to you to decide how much you need to spend on transportation. So, far from being important positive factors, I see expense allowances as warning signs of controlling employers.

Opportunities for advancement. This is the factor employers love to tout to young people as an inducement to accept a job that offers a low salary. It's ironic that they use the most outdated rationalization to sway the youngest candidates. But that's because students don't yet know how the real world works. They move up each year simply by doing satisfactory work, and they think the real world works like education. A job that offered "room to move up" was indeed a good thing...back when people actually moved up in an organization. But for more than two decades the people who have stepped into those higher spots have come from outside the organization. As I noted earlier in the book, the average thirty - two - year - old American has already worked for nine different firms. That's because there is no upward movement from within anymore. It's a catch-22: stick around long enough to be a candidate for upward mobility and you're marked as being somehow deficient...for sticking around that long. Today, opportunities for advancement are actually just opportunities to learn how to please new bosses. I warn my more experienced clients who occasionally hear this pitch not to think they've stumbled onto the one company in America that still believes in promoting from within. It's a lie. To move up you must move out. This is the factor employers love to tout to young people as an inducement to accept a job that offers a low salary. It's ironic that they use the most outdated rationalization to sway the youngest candidates. But that's because students don't yet know how the real world works. They move up each year simply by doing satisfactory work, and they think the real world works like education. A job that offered "room to move up" was indeed a good thing...back when people actually moved up in an organization. But for more than two decades the people who have stepped into those higher spots have come from outside the organization. As I noted earlier in the book, the average thirty - two - year - old American has already worked for nine different firms. That's because there is no upward movement from within anymore. It's a catch-22: stick around long enough to be a candidate for upward mobility and you're marked as being somehow deficient...for sticking around that long. Today, opportunities for advancement are actually just opportunities to learn how to please new bosses. I warn my more experienced clients who occasionally hear this pitch not to think they've stumbled onto the one company in America that still believes in promoting from within. It's a lie. To move up you must move out.

Stability. In times of economic upheaval many people think the perceived stability of a potential employer is an important factor in weighing job offers. Actually, I think it's a mistake to attach any significance to a company's stability. Whenever a client cites stability as being important, I ask her to give me an example of a stable company. Then I give her a quick homework a.s.signment, asking her to do an online search combining the name of that company and the word "layoffs." Of course, a host of articles and links will appear showing how many thousands, or tens of thousands, the company has let go in the past few years. That's because there's really no such thing as a stable company anymore. Large firms are trying to act small. Small firms are trying to look large. And every firm seems obsessed with its value, as expressed by its share price, rather than its profits. The quickest and surest way to boost the value of your shares is to lay people off. Giant conglomerates change their names repeatedly to reflect the relative share values of their merged components. Relying on the perceived stability of a potential employer is counting on lottery winnings to serve as your retirement plan. Sure, it's remotely possible, but the odds are against you. Yes, the "stable" company may still exist in ten years, but its entire staff may have turned over five times in that period. In times of economic upheaval many people think the perceived stability of a potential employer is an important factor in weighing job offers. Actually, I think it's a mistake to attach any significance to a company's stability. Whenever a client cites stability as being important, I ask her to give me an example of a stable company. Then I give her a quick homework a.s.signment, asking her to do an online search combining the name of that company and the word "layoffs." Of course, a host of articles and links will appear showing how many thousands, or tens of thousands, the company has let go in the past few years. That's because there's really no such thing as a stable company anymore. Large firms are trying to act small. Small firms are trying to look large. And every firm seems obsessed with its value, as expressed by its share price, rather than its profits. The quickest and surest way to boost the value of your shares is to lay people off. Giant conglomerates change their names repeatedly to reflect the relative share values of their merged components. Relying on the perceived stability of a potential employer is counting on lottery winnings to serve as your retirement plan. Sure, it's remotely possible, but the odds are against you. Yes, the "stable" company may still exist in ten years, but its entire staff may have turned over five times in that period.

Status. Let me go back and again ask an important question from earlier in this book: why are you working? If you're working to impress other people, to please your parents, or to prove something to someone, then status is an important factor in weighing job offers. But if you're working to provide for yourself and your family, as I believe you should be, status on its own is meaningless. Status alone won't put food on the table or pay for your daughter's college tuition. Status will make a difference only with people shallow enough to believe you are what you do and your value as a human being is primarily determined by your work. Another important point to consider is that high-status jobs often require larger - than - average time commitments. High-status people often think of themselves as being "too important" to go home at five, or to take two weeks' vacation. They have to stay late and take working vacations. High - status people don't have the time to go to their son's Little League game or their daughter's dance recital. Even if they don't think of themselves that way, many others do, and the expectation becomes a reality. Let me go back and again ask an important question from earlier in this book: why are you working? If you're working to impress other people, to please your parents, or to prove something to someone, then status is an important factor in weighing job offers. But if you're working to provide for yourself and your family, as I believe you should be, status on its own is meaningless. Status alone won't put food on the table or pay for your daughter's college tuition. Status will make a difference only with people shallow enough to believe you are what you do and your value as a human being is primarily determined by your work. Another important point to consider is that high-status jobs often require larger - than - average time commitments. High-status people often think of themselves as being "too important" to go home at five, or to take two weeks' vacation. They have to stay late and take working vacations. High - status people don't have the time to go to their son's Little League game or their daughter's dance recital. Even if they don't think of themselves that way, many others do, and the expectation becomes a reality.

t.i.tle. Don't let meaningless labels influence your choice of jobs. Some companies continue to try to entice people into taking less money in exchange for a more exalted-sounding t.i.tle. The son of a client of mine was offered a job as "editor in chief" of a small-town weekly newspaper. Of course, the job included everything from writing all the stories to delivering the paper door to door. While that's an extreme example, it's indicative of the kind of t.i.tle inflation that's taken place in the past few years. There are no more secretaries ... they're all administrative a.s.sistants. There are no more sales clerks...they're all customer service representatives. Even while all this t.i.tle inflation is taking place there are other cutting-edge companies that are coming up with either stylistic t.i.tles - "manger of creative destruction" is one of my favorites - or removing t.i.tles altogether, pursing some kind of cla.s.sless vision of a workplace filled with "comrades." Because the practical value of t.i.tles in determining exactly what you do has diminished, even the most traditional recruiter ignores them in reviewing a resume. Job descriptions are what matter today, not t.i.tles. That's why I had you draft your own job description back in chapter 2. The t.i.tles that matter most today are husband, wife, life partner, father, mother, and friend. Don't let meaningless labels influence your choice of jobs. Some companies continue to try to entice people into taking less money in exchange for a more exalted-sounding t.i.tle. The son of a client of mine was offered a job as "editor in chief" of a small-town weekly newspaper. Of course, the job included everything from writing all the stories to delivering the paper door to door. While that's an extreme example, it's indicative of the kind of t.i.tle inflation that's taken place in the past few years. There are no more secretaries ... they're all administrative a.s.sistants. There are no more sales clerks...they're all customer service representatives. Even while all this t.i.tle inflation is taking place there are other cutting-edge companies that are coming up with either stylistic t.i.tles - "manger of creative destruction" is one of my favorites - or removing t.i.tles altogether, pursing some kind of cla.s.sless vision of a workplace filled with "comrades." Because the practical value of t.i.tles in determining exactly what you do has diminished, even the most traditional recruiter ignores them in reviewing a resume. Job descriptions are what matter today, not t.i.tles. That's why I had you draft your own job description back in chapter 2. The t.i.tles that matter most today are husband, wife, life partner, father, mother, and friend.

Factors That May or May Not Be Important There are a handful of job-offer characteristics that may or may not be important to consider, depending on their specifics and/or your current life circ.u.mstances.

Disability insurance. I'm a big believer in the importance of disability insurance. That's because when I was forty-eight years old I contracted tuberculosis and lost my job as a vice president at a major bank. Until I recovered and launched a new career as an attorney and life coach, I relied on my disability-insurance benefits to help keep food on my family's table and a roof over our heads. I'm a big believer in the importance of disability insurance. That's because when I was forty-eight years old I contracted tuberculosis and lost my job as a vice president at a major bank. Until I recovered and launched a new career as an attorney and life coach, I relied on my disability-insurance benefits to help keep food on my family's table and a roof over our heads.11 While Social Security does indeed have a disability-insurance element, it is very difficult to qualify for benefits, and the payouts are quite low. If you don't have a disability-insurance policy of your own, receiving one as a benefit is definitely an important factor in weighing a job offer. It's also an important factor if you would for some reason have a hard time obtaining an affordable disability policy on your own. Since employers purchase insurance coverages as group plans, one individual employee's health shouldn't have an impact on coverage or cost. If you already have disability coverage of your own, this isn't an important factor in judging a job offer. While Social Security does indeed have a disability-insurance element, it is very difficult to qualify for benefits, and the payouts are quite low. If you don't have a disability-insurance policy of your own, receiving one as a benefit is definitely an important factor in weighing a job offer. It's also an important factor if you would for some reason have a hard time obtaining an affordable disability policy on your own. Since employers purchase insurance coverages as group plans, one individual employee's health shouldn't have an impact on coverage or cost. If you already have disability coverage of your own, this isn't an important factor in judging a job offer.

11. My illness and subsequent recovery had, as you might imagine, a profound effect on my att.i.tudes toward life and work. Those are outlined and explored in my book Second Acts Second Acts.

Health insurance. You don't need me to explain how important health insurance is today. If you don't have it from another source, it's a definite plus in any job compensation package. But if you are already, or can be, covered by someone else's health plan, it need not be a factor in choosing one job offer over another. Don't get me wrong. Having secondary coverage isn't worthless. It might pick up some of the out-of-pocket costs not covered by the primary coverage. So if all else is equal between two offers, you might as well take the one that provides health insurance. You don't need me to explain how important health insurance is today. If you don't have it from another source, it's a definite plus in any job compensation package. But if you are already, or can be, covered by someone else's health plan, it need not be a factor in choosing one job offer over another. Don't get me wrong. Having secondary coverage isn't worthless. It might pick up some of the out-of-pocket costs not covered by the primary coverage. So if all else is equal between two offers, you might as well take the one that provides health insurance.

Life insurance. While I'm a big proponent of disability insurance, I'm not a big fan of life insurance. I think people usually carry far too much life coverage and it's usually of the wrong kind. I tell my clients they should have only as much life insurance as necessary for their family to maintain their lifestyle for three years - that's enough time to make adjustments - and to take care of any outstanding obligations - the remaining contributions to a child's college savings plan, for example. And I think the only type of insurance that's worth buying is pure term that has the same premium for either a five- or a fifteen - year period. I don't believe insurance is ever really a good investment vehicle. While I'm a big proponent of disability insurance, I'm not a big fan of life insurance. I think people usually carry far too much life coverage and it's usually of the wrong kind. I tell my clients they should have only as much life insurance as necessary for their family to maintain their lifestyle for three years - that's enough time to make adjustments - and to take care of any outstanding obligations - the remaining contributions to a child's college savings plan, for example. And I think the only type of insurance that's worth buying is pure term that has the same premium for either a five- or a fifteen - year period. I don't believe insurance is ever really a good investment vehicle.12 So why don't I list life insurance as an unimportant factor? One reason only. If you cannot obtain affordable life insurance on your own, say because of a medical condition, you will probably be able to get it through an employer's group plan. Therefore, if this is the only way you can get life insurance coverage, it's an important factor to consider. So why don't I list life insurance as an unimportant factor? One reason only. If you cannot obtain affordable life insurance on your own, say because of a medical condition, you will probably be able to get it through an employer's group plan. Therefore, if this is the only way you can get life insurance coverage, it's an important factor to consider.

12. The exception to my term-only rule is when a senior citizen needs a policy to cover burial expenses. Term policies actually cost more than whole-life policies when the insured is over a certain age.

Retirement plan. I'm lumping together all employer-sponsored investment plans in this category. These are important factors only if the employer funds the plan, in whole or in part. If there's no employer financial contribution involved, and you'll be funding the plan entirely on your own, it really doesn't matter which company offers what plan. You can always save more money on your own to compensate. But if you're considering two jobs, one that offers a 401(k) plan in which the employer matches employee contributions dollar for dollar, and one that doesn't offer this type of matching program, it would be an important factor to consider. After all, those contributions are, or at least will be, a definite boost to your income. Alternatively, if one potential employer offers a defined-benefit pension plan - the amount of your payout is guaranteed - and the other offers a defined-contribution pension plan - the amount of its deposit is the only thing that's certain - the former may be a real advantage, worth weighing heavily when making your choice. I'm lumping together all employer-sponsored investment plans in this category. These are important factors only if the employer funds the plan, in whole or in part. If there's no employer financial contribution involved, and you'll be funding the plan entirely on your own, it really doesn't matter which company offers what plan. You can always save more money on your own to compensate. But if you're considering two jobs, one that offers a 401(k) plan in which the employer matches employee contributions dollar for dollar, and one that doesn't offer this type of matching program, it would be an important factor to consider. After all, those contributions are, or at least will be, a definite boost to your income. Alternatively, if one potential employer offers a defined-benefit pension plan - the amount of your payout is guaranteed - and the other offers a defined-contribution pension plan - the amount of its deposit is the only thing that's certain - the former may be a real advantage, worth weighing heavily when making your choice.

Tuition reimburs.e.m.e.nt. Tuition reimburs.e.m.e.nt is an important factor only if your own long-term plans mesh with the restrictions and limitations placed on the reimburs.e.m.e.nt plan. For instance, some firms will only reimburse tuition for certain courses of study that, in theory, will have a direct short-term impact on your job performance. That would be a positive factor only if those specific courses of study fit into your long-term plan. Let's say you're working for an engineering firm that will reimburse tuition for courses leading to a master's in engineering. Your long-term plan involves moving into a management role rather than staying with engineering. In that case the reimburs.e.m.e.nt offer really isn't an important factor to consider in weighing the offer. Another way to look at it is, if you'd be paying for the education on your own anyway, this is an important factor; otherwise, it's not. Tuition reimburs.e.m.e.nt is an important factor only if your own long-term plans mesh with the restrictions and limitations placed on the reimburs.e.m.e.nt plan. For instance, some firms will only reimburse tuition for certain courses of study that, in theory, will have a direct short-term impact on your job performance. That would be a positive factor only if those specific courses of study fit into your long-term plan. Let's say you're working for an engineering firm that will reimburse tuition for courses leading to a master's in engineering. Your long-term plan involves moving into a management role rather than staying with engineering. In that case the reimburs.e.m.e.nt offer really isn't an important factor to consider in weighing the offer. Another way to look at it is, if you'd be paying for the education on your own anyway, this is an important factor; otherwise, it's not.

Factors That Are Important Today So what are the important factors when weighing job offers today? I believe there are five issues on which you need to focus. This time I'll address them in order of importance.

Income. Nearly everyone says he wants to make more money. Then why is it so few of us make it a priority in our work life? I think for both psychological and cultural reasons we believe money is cra.s.s, venal, and dirty. Yet money in and of itself can do nothing. Its value is entirely extrinsic. Money is simply a means of exchange, a tool. And a tool is neither good nor evil. It can be powerful, however. Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can buy things that make you happy, and its absence can make you unhappy. Money may not be able to buy you health - since you can't purchase new genes - but it can sure buy you preventive care and better medical treatment if you do get ill. Money can't buy you the spiritual love of another human being. But it can buy you physical love - prost.i.tution was probably one of the first uses for money - and it can buy you a form of spiritual love, albeit from pets rather than from human beings. Nearly everyone says he wants to make more money. Then why is it so few of us make it a priority in our work life? I think for both psychological and cultural reasons we believe money is cra.s.s, venal, and dirty. Yet money in and of itself can do nothing. Its value is entirely extrinsic. Money is simply a means of exchange, a tool. And a tool is neither good nor evil. It can be powerful, however. Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can buy things that make you happy, and its absence can make you unhappy. Money may not be able to buy you health - since you can't purchase new genes - but it can sure buy you preventive care and better medical treatment if you do get ill. Money can't buy you the spiritual love of another human being. But it can buy you physical love - prost.i.tution was probably one of the first uses for money - and it can buy you a form of spiritual love, albeit from pets rather than from human beings.

There's nothing wrong with making money the priority in choosing which job offer you accept. As I've said earlier, work is the only aspect of life that has the potential to provide you with money. You can get spiritual, psychological, and emotional fulfillment from your personal life. In fact, you're more likely to get that kind of fulfillment from your personal life than from your work life. If you want more money, make it the priority in your work life. That's really the unspoken secret in the American workplace. The way to make more money is to make it your priority. Those who earn a great deal of money do so because they spend a lot of time and energy in the effort to make money. They stress the importance of money in all their work and business actions. They make it their number one priority. So should you. In fact, you should make every effort possible to trade any of the compensation benefits I've listed as unimportant factors for additional money. (See the box on page 169: Trading Benefits for Dollars or Time Off.) As I've said before: do it for the money and the love will follow. To the extent that you maximize the amount of money you earn through work, you maximize your chances to satisfy your other needs outside of work. More money from work provides you with the tools to do more with the rest of your life. Money from work provides you with the means to travel, to help the poor, to provide for your children, to paint watercolors of the Southwest, to buy books, to go to museums and films and concerts, to take cla.s.ses, to do whatever it is you love, whatever makes you happiest.

TRADING BENEFITS FOR DOLLARS OR TIME OFFJust because a particular benefit isn't important enough to you to be part of your weighing a job offer doesn't mean it's something you should forget about. Many of these benefits impact a potential employer's bottom line. By forgoing, say, health insurance, you can save your potential employer a great deal of money. By pointing this out during your salary negotiations you may be able to get additional income or paid time off. The key is to frame this, not as asking for more, but as asking for a credit for something you're giving up. It will probably be easier to ask for additional paid time off - say another week's vacation - than additional dollars.

Of course, you also need the time to do all those things you love, and that's why I believe you also need to give priority to the next three factors.

Proximity. I'm always amazed how little people take their proximity to the workplace into account when choosing one job over another. Some people spend more time going to and from work during the course of a week than they spend interacting one - on - one with their children, and that's a shame. Let's take the stereotypical couple with children who have moved from an urban environment to a suburban one in order to provide a better quality of life for their children. Say it takes, door to door, ninety minutes for the husband to get from home to his workplace, and sixty minutes, door to door, for the wife to get from home to her workplace. That's three hours a day and fifteen hours a week for the husband, spent traveling to and from work. For the wife it's two hours a day and ten hours a week. Added together that's more than a day that this hypothetical couple spends traveling to and from work. That's twenty-five hours spent neither earning money nor spending time on the things that fulfill you personally - other than possibly reading if the trip is on ma.s.s transit, or listening to music if it's in a personal car. If they each took a job that was just thirty minutes closer, they could conceivably have breakfast with their kids in the morning, or get home early enough to play before dinner. And of course this applies to things other than spending time with the family. The added time could be spent going to a museum after work, or going to a movie during the week, since they wouldn't have to wake up as early. I'm always amazed how little people take their proximity to the workplace into account when choosing one job over another. Some people spend more time going to and from work during the course of a week than they spend interacting one - on - one with their children, and that's a shame. Let's take the stereotypical couple with children who have moved from an urban environment to a suburban one in order to provide a better quality of life for their children. Say it takes, door to door, ninety minutes for the husband to get from home to his workplace, and sixty minutes, door to door, for the wife to get from home to her workplace. That's three hours a day and fifteen hours a week for the husband, spent traveling to and from work. For the wife it's two hours a day and ten hours a week. Added together that's more than a day that this hypothetical couple spends traveling to and from work. That's twenty-five hours spent neither earning money nor spending time on the things that fulfill you personally - other than possibly reading if the trip is on ma.s.s transit, or listening to music if it's in a personal car. If they each took a job that was just thirty minutes closer, they could conceivably have breakfast with their kids in the morning, or get home early enough to play before dinner. And of course this applies to things other than spending time with the family. The added time could be spent going to a museum after work, or going to a movie during the week, since they wouldn't have to wake up as early.

Besides the lifestyle benefit of being closer to work, there's also a financial benefit. How can you calculate the financial value of less time spent commuting? Well, one way is to take your weekly salary and divide that by the total of the hours you spend traveling to and from work and the hours you actually spend at work. Say you spend two hours a day commuting and you work eight hours a day. That's a total of ten hours a day and fifty hours a week. Let's also say, for simplicity's sake, you gross $1,000 a week. That means, commuting included, you're earning $20 per hour. Say you are offered a job that pays the same $1,000 a week, but that is thirty minutes closer to your home. That's one hour a day and five hours a week you save in travel. Instead of dividing the $1,000 by fifty hours, divide it by forty-five hours. Your hourly earnings, calculated in this manner, would increase to $22.22 per hour. That's the equivalent of an extra $111 a week, and $5,772 a year. Add the potential lifestyle advantages to the additional equivalent of $5,772 a year, and the nearer job is the better choice.

Paid time off. The third important factor to consider when weighing jobs today is how much paid time off you get at each job. The more paid time off you get, the more time you have to spend on your personal life, doing the things that are more likely to give you psychological, emotional, and spiritual fulfillment, without paying a financial price for that fulfillment. In effect, you get to have your cake and eat it too; you get to spend time on your personal life while being paid by your employer. While two weeks' paid vacation has become the standard in the American workplace, there are many organizations that offer more days, based on years of service, and that also allow you to acc.u.mulate unused paid sick and personal days. I'd suggest that if you can't trade any of the unimportant factors for money, you try to trade them for additional paid time off. I'd rather see you get another week's vacation than a better t.i.tle and a company car. The third important factor to consider when weighing jobs today is how much paid time off you get at each job. The more paid time off you get, the more time you have to spend on your personal life, doing the things that are more likely to give you psychological, emotional, and spiritual fulfillment, without paying a financial price for that fulfillment. In effect, you get to have your cake and eat it too; you get to spend time on your personal life while being paid by your employer. While two weeks' paid vacation has become the standard in the American workplace, there are many organizations that offer more days, based on years of service, and that also allow you to acc.u.mulate unused paid sick and personal days. I'd suggest that if you can't trade any of the unimportant factors for money, you try to trade them for additional paid time off. I'd rather see you get another week's vacation than a better t.i.tle and a company car.

Unpaid time off. While it's not as valuable as paid time off, unpaid time off is also an important factor to weigh when comparing jobs. Temporary leaves to handle family matters can be invaluable in a crisis. The psychological comfort you receive from knowing your job will be waiting for you when you return from welcoming a newborn into your home, easing an aging parent into a new living situation, or attending to a death in the family is incalculable. Sabbaticals, while offered by only a handful of employers, are incredible opportunities to spend an extended period of time doing something that brings fulfillment. Being able to spend six months traveling through Europe or helping Habitat for Humanity build low-income housing in West Virginia, and being able to come back to your job after such an experience, is a rare opportunity and it should be treasured. While it's not as valuable as paid time off, unpaid time off is also an important factor to weigh when comparing jobs. Temporary leaves to handle family matters can be invaluable in a crisis. The psychological comfort you receive from knowing your job will be waiting for you when you return from welcoming a newborn into your home, easing an aging parent into a new living situation, or attending to a death in the family is incalculable. Sabbaticals, while offered by only a handful of employers, are incredible opportunities to spend an extended period of time doing something that brings fulfillment. Being able to spend six months traveling through Europe or helping Habitat for Humanity build low-income housing in West Virginia, and being able to come back to your job after such an experience, is a rare opportunity and it should be treasured.

Opportunity for learning. A much more common opportunity, which I don't think is treasured enough, is the chance to expand your skills and knowledge on the job. An opportunity for learning is an opportunity to increase your future job-fis.h.i.+ng prospects. Whether it's studying and absorbing the dynamics of a new industry, or picking up a new technical skill, learning opportunities will turn you into a more desirable employee in the future. This is one of the few things your current employer will ever do to help you land your next job. This can sometimes be such an important factor that I've actually encouraged a handful of clients over the years to take a lesser-paying job just for the chance to pick up a new skill. The idea is that by taking one step back financially they will set themselves up to take a larger step ahead with their next job by adding a skill to their repertoire that exponentially increases their value. An example that comes quickly to mind is Rachel Mizrahi, a client who worked as managing editor of a women's magazine. She took a job with a start - up that was founding a woman-oriented health Web site in the early 1990s even though it meant a small cut in her pay. After only a year working at the Web site she was offered a job heading up the publications department of a medical school, based at least in part on her having both magazine and Web site experience. That job paid $20,000 more than she was previously earning, an income jump she wouldn't have achieved as quickly without having first taken that step back in exchange for an opportunity to learn. A much more common opportunity, which I don't think is treasured enough, is the chance to expand your skills and knowledge on the job. An opportunity for learning is an opportunity to increase your future job-fis.h.i.+ng prospects. Whether it's studying and absorbing the dynamics of a new industry, or picking up a new technical skill, learning opportunities will turn you into a more desirable employee in the future. This is one of the few things your current employer will ever do to help you land your next job. This can sometimes be such an important factor that I've actually encouraged a handful of clients over the years to take a lesser-paying job just for the chance to pick up a new skill. The idea is that by taking one step back financially they will set themselves up to take a larger step ahead with their next job by adding a skill to their repertoire that exponentially increases their value. An example that comes quickly to mind is Rachel Mizrahi, a client who worked as managing editor of a women's magazine. She took a job with a start - up that was founding a woman-oriented health Web site in the early 1990s even though it meant a small cut in her pay. After only a year working at the Web site she was offered a job heading up the publications department of a medical school, based at least in part on her having both magazine and Web site experience. That job paid $20,000 more than she was previously earning, an income jump she wouldn't have achieved as quickly without having first taken that step back in exchange for an opportunity to learn.

Prioritizing the Factors in Two Job Offers Turn back to the chart you created comparing your competing job offers. Get yourself a Hi-Liter or a red pen. Highlight the lines in the chart that represent the factors which are truly important to you. In addition to the five I believe are important to everyone - income, proximity, paid time off, unpaid time off, and opportunity for learning - include any of the five neutral factors - disability insurance, health insurance, life insurance, retirement plan, tuition reimburs.e.m.e.nt - that are important in this instance.

Now compare the two offers, focusing on only these factors. Is one offer clearly better than the other? I'll bet that by prioritizing in this fas.h.i.+on you're able to take a debatable choice and make it clearer. However, if you're still unable to clearly chose one over the other, my advice would be to choose the one that pays a higher income. Never forget that when it comes to work, it's the money that matters most.

Debbie O'Leary Prioritizes the Factors in Her Two Job Offers Debbie went back to her chart and highlighted the five important factors. On the income line, the satellite job had the advantage. On the proximity line, the radio job came out on top. While the radio job also had the advantage of offering more unpaid time off, the satellite job provided more paid time off. The satellite job also offered opportunities for learning. Since neither job offered disability or life insurance, or tuition reimburs.e.m.e.nt, those factors weren't important. Debbie already had health insurance coverage through her husband, so that wasn't an important factor either. However, the satellite radio job had a retirement plan that included an employer financial contribution, effectively adding to her income and making it an important factor to consider. Weighing the factors that really are important today, Debbie surprised herself (and her husband) by opting for the satellite radio job...the offer she had almost reflexively turned down. I gave her a round of applause, both in congratulations and as a small subst.i.tute for the public fanfare she'd be missing. But then I told her she still had more work to do: she had to figure out when she'd be leaving the job she'd just started.

Chapter 8.

h.e.l.lo, I Must Be Going

h.e.l.lo, I must be going.I came to say,I cannot stay,I must be going.- GROUCHO M MARX IN A ANIMAL C CRACKERS AGGIE WICKFIELD HAD never felt so empowered when leaving a job. After eighteen months as administrative a.s.sistant to the comptroller of an outdoor-clothing manufacturing firm, Aggie was leaving, of her own volition, to take a job as personal a.s.sistant to the president of a labor union. Every other time she had left a job it had been because she either hated the job or was laid off. But she didn't hate her job with the clothing manufacturer. In fact, she liked it. It paid well and provided her with the chance to learn some new skills. And far from laying her off, her boss was sad to see her go, fearful of not being able to replace her. Aggie was leaving because she had found something even better; a job that provided more of the benefits of her current job, as well as some things it lacked. The job with the labor union paid better, provided chances to learn even more new skills, gave more paid holidays, and was located closer to her home. For the first time in her working life Aggie felt as if she were moving toward something, rather than away from something. She realized she was moving toward being happier. never felt so empowered when leaving a job. After eighteen months as administrative a.s.sistant to the comptroller of an outdoor-clothing manufacturing firm, Aggie was leaving, of her own volition, to take a job as personal a.s.sistant to the president of a labor union. Every other time she had left a job it had been because she either hated the job or was laid off. But she didn't hate her job with the clothing manufacturer. In fact, she liked it. It paid well and provided her with the chance to learn some new skills. And far from laying her off, her boss was sad to see her go, fearful of not being able to replace her. Aggie was leaving because she had found something even better; a job that provided more of the benefits of her current job, as well as some things it lacked. The job with the labor union paid better, provided chances to learn even more new skills, gave more paid holidays, and was located closer to her home. For the first time in her working life Aggie felt as if she were moving toward something, rather than away from something. She realized she was moving toward being happier.

You can choose the time you leave a job, rather than waiting for the ax to fall.

You can repeatedly move from good jobs to better jobs, instead of moving from one bad job to another.

You can guarantee you get more of what you want from work simply by choosing to s.h.i.+ft jobs in order to improve your situation.

You can turn your work life from a reactive process in which you feel pushed around by chance and uncaring bosses, to a proactive course in which you are in charge, moving when and where you want.

To achieve this you need to adopt the seventh and final element in my work philosophy, one I call "h.e.l.lo, I must be going." What this means is that, having gone job fis.h.i.+ng and landed a number of job offers, and having chosen the best one, you enter that job with the clear sense of why and how you'll leave it. You accept that every job is temporary, and plan accordingly.

We Are All Hired to Be Fired In professional sports leagues, only one team wins a champions.h.i.+p. That means every other team in the league ends up a loser, regardless of how entertaining its games were, or how much its record improved over previous years. Because of this, coaches or managers are constantly being fired. After all, unless they win the champions.h.i.+p they've failed at their job. The adage is that a coach or manager is hired to be fired.

What's true of professional sports is true of all work today. We are all hired to be fired. A company brings in a group of people to, let's say, create an e-commerce operation for the company. If it generates immediate profits or boosts the stock price, they keep their jobs and keep the operation going. If after, perhaps, two years, the e-commerce operation isn't working, or hasn't helped push up the stock price, the whole project is shelved and everyone is fired. This goes not just for new ventures, but for long-standing elements of an organization. Outsource the bookkeeping department. Replace the sales staff with independent reps. Computerize customer service and fire the whole team.

People used to be viewed as a.s.sets of a business, a part of the long-term wealth and value of the organization. Today, people are seen as expenses, to be added or cut depending on what's needed to impact the short-term revenues, or worse, stock price, of the company.

You can blame this on the acceleration of the business cycle, the globalization of commerce, or advances in information technology. You can blame it on the current presidential administration, Congress, or Wall Street. You can even blame the tides or the signs of the zodiac. On the practical level, where and who we work for a living all exist, it doesn't matter who's to blame. What matters is the facts on the ground...and how you react to them. This what I tried to explain to Bill Kaplan when he first came to see me.

As I noted back in chapter 1, Bill is a recent college graduate who led a pretty unsettled and nomadic life up until graduation. The son of a longtime client of mine, Bill is a charming and very creative young man. At times it seemed his creativity was more of a curse than a blessing, since he could never quite figure out how to harness it.

After high school he went to a small private college in upstate New York with the intent of being a fine-arts major. But while there he was bitten by the acting bug. Convinced that was where his future lay, he transferred from the arts school to a state university, where he became a theater arts major. After a year studying theater he decided the only way to really become an actor was to act, and so, despite his parents' pleas, he dropped out of college, moved to New York City, took jobs waiting on tables, and tried to line up acting work. After two years of struggle he went back to school at a city college, this time to pursue his love of writing and reading. He became an English major and finally graduated.

Having become fascinated by the bookstore business, Bill was thrilled to line up a job as an a.s.sistant manager at one of the large chain bookstores. He came to see me for a life-planning session, at the suggestion of his parents. After hearing him wax enthusiastic about his new job I explained that everyone, including him, had actually been hired to be fired, and suggested he start laying the groundwork to leave.

Leave Before You're Pushed Out I don't think anyone who's been in the job market for the past few years, or who has read the newspapers or watched the news recently, can disagree that today we're all hired to be fired. No one's job is secure for the long term, whether you're the last hired or a lifelong employee, a star performer or a slacker, making minimum wage or six figures. As a result, I think it's essential that you leave before you're pushed out.

As I've touched on earlier in this book, if you wait until you're terminated to look for work, you'll find yourself a seller in a buyer's market. If your employer is cutting staff, you'll be competing with your former coworkers for any job openings elsewhere. If your old company is cutting back, odds are that other firms in the same industry are doing the same, making the number of job seekers out there even larger and the number of potential employers lower. And if multiple companies in your industry are cutting back, that could have a ripple effect on support industries and businesses, adding to the number of unemployed and subtracting from the number of possible openings. In addition, an industry-wide cutback could be indicative of a larger economic trend, meaning many other industries are ailing too. That means still more job seekers and still fewer potential employers.

Greg Horn loved his job as a pilot with a small commuter airline in New England. He enjoyed flying the company's small turboprops and being able to spend almost every night at home with his wife and newborn son. That's why, when he began sensing things weren't going well with his employer, he hesitated to look for another job. By early 2002, when he was laid off, all the other small commuter airlines in New England were cutting staff as well because of the industry slowdown. It wasn't until the middle of 2003 that he was able to find another flying job.

On the other hand, if you leave on your own you'll be a seller in a seller's market. You won't be competing with others from your company who were fired. There won't be a slew of terminations from other companies in your industry. In fact, they may be interested in stealing away people from a compet.i.tor when times are good. If your industry is doing well, the support industries will be fine too. And unless your industry runs counter to the business cycle, other industries will probably be doing well too.

John Carpinose had been in the private security industry for more than a decade. After graduating college with a degree in criminal justice he had joined one of the country's larger commercial security companies. A skilled manager who was willing to travel because he was single, John became one of the company's "firefighters," rapidly responding to divisions or regions that had problems. The growing pains in the business after September 11 had sp.a.w.ned more than the usual number of crises. Yet John still made time for his job fis.h.i.+ng. It yielded four offers from other security-related companies in the span of six months. John was able to get a 50 percent increase in salary by jumping to a compet.i.tor in the midst of the business boom.TIPS FOR GETTING RAISESThere are only four arguments you can make to get more money from your boss:

Your income hasn't kept pace with the cost of living because of inflation.

You're making an exceptional contribution to the company's bottom line. You're making an exceptional contribution to the company's bottom line.

You've taken on new tasks and responsibilities, so your job has changed. You've taken on new tasks and responsibilities, so your job has changed.

You're not being paid the market rate for your services. You're not being paid the market rate for your services.

There's no acceptable reason for an employer to turn down a cost - of - living increase. However, it's not actually a raise, since all you're doing is keeping pace with inflation.If your contribution is a onetime occurrence, you're liable to receive a bonus rather than a raise. Still, that's better than nothing.Having taken on new responsibilities, you're due added compensation, but only if the company values your increased contributions.Showing that you're not being paid market value puts the company on the spot. To keep you they'll have to give you a raise. Whatever they do, there will be a positive outcome. If they value you as an employee they'll come across with more money. If they don't give you a raise it means they don't value you, they don't have the money, or both. Whatever the reason, this means you should take another job as soon as possible.

Leave Something on the Table Over the past couple of years some of my more enterprising clients have come to me for help in trying to perfectly time leaving their job. They accept that they were hired to be fired and need to leave before they're pushed out, but don't want to miss out in the process. They want to keep their job as long as they're still likely to get raises and bonuses, but leave just as their potential for increasing their income has peaked. (See the box on page 179: Tips for Getting Raises.) These people are trying to do in the job market what others attempt in the stock market or in financial negotiations.

Stock market timers try to hold on to a stock as long as it continues to increase in value, only selling it at its top price, just before it starts going down, so they get every single penny from it they possibly can. Greedy negotiators want to hold out until they either get every last dollar the other party was willing to spend, or force every last concession possible. They want to sell for the highest price possible and buy for the lowest price possible.

I tell my clients they should feel free to time their job status this way...just as soon as they've shown me they can do the same with the stock market or in negotiations. I don't mean to be flippant, but no one has ever figured out how to consistently time the stock market in this way. People always sell before a stock reaches its top price - and kick themselves for missing out on a few dollars more - or sell once it has started going down in price - and kick themselves for not selling sooner and missing out on a few dollars more. And no one has ever figured out how to always get every single dollar out of a negotiation. My advice to those trying to time the job market is the same as those trying to time the stock market or max out their negotiations: don't.

Most people make the mistake of thinking there are discrete, readily apparent moments in the rise and fall of something they're watching closely, whether it's a stock price, financial concessions, or earnings potential from a job. High and low points can be seen only in hindsight. It's only after something has started going down, after it has pa.s.sed its tipping point, that you can see where and when it reached its peak or hit its bottom. The only way to be able to discern the high point or low point is to wait until it has pa.s.sed. That's why, whether it comes to the stock market, negotiating, or deciding when to leave a job, I advocate "leaving something on the table."

Success in these situations isn't getting every last penny; it's getting a result with which you're happy. When it comes to the stock market, that means selling or buying at a price which works, not just at the highest or lowest price. When it comes to negotiating, that means reaching an agreement with which both parties are comfortable, not just when one side has gotten everything possible out of the other. And when it comes to leaving your job, that means, if possible, leaving while you're still valued, while you're still getting raises. In all these instances, greed will get the better of you if you let it. Instead, be willing to settle for less than everything. Believe me, if you leave a job at a time when you might have been able to get another raise, you'll make up for it in your next job.

Elizabeth Stoerdeur felt a bit guilty accepting the employee of the year award from the specialty cable network where she worked, because she knew she was going to be leaving in less than a month. Elizabeth had just been promoted and given a raise for being the driving force behind the network's surprise hit of the fall season. At the network's annual Christmas party two executive producers had separately pulled her aside to pa.s.s on the rumor that she was in line for the next executive producer opening. She bit her lip and didn't tell either that, knowing how fleeting success in the media business could be, she had already accepted an executive producer job at another cable network.

Covert Versus Overt Approaches You and I and everyone else in the world who's been conscious during the past few years realizes there's no job security anymore, and that employees are hired to be fired. But that doesn't mean bosses are ready to admit it - at least not to all their employees.

If you're a lower- or midlevel worker, bosses will show you no loyalty and will fire you at the drop of a share price, but they don't want to see that you're preparing for that to happen and, heaven forbid, could beat them to the punch. Bosses are very uncomfortable with a.s.sertive and empowered workers. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they will preach to you about loyalty and secur