We all need money. We have a limited shelf-life and need to earn our living till we die, out of that shelf-life. Our education and skills enable us to rightfully earn that living. Asking for more becomes self-explanatory as we progress. Here’s a quote from one of the job seekers
“Just for the record, when I came down to Bangalore in Jan 2010, interviewed at 6 places, had 5 offers. Took the best. And guess what, got an appraisal of 1L within 3 mths… am that good… so what u call greediness, I call it ‘being worthy’. Sincerely speaking, I wouldn’t have come back to India, if there wasn’t a recession in the UK. whether I work for Yahoo! or AOL or IBM, chances are I would return to UK in a few years. As for the salary, I recently got selected in AOL, but rejected their offer since they were offering something like 9L and I wanted 12L, so I have IBM currently; and 2 more MNCs. Mate, I was an MCSD and MCSE when I was 19, have programmed on mostly all the UNIXes out there in the market. And know my stuff real well. So, yes, if sumone pays 15-20L, wouldnt mind changing. Money comes first, all other shit later. Thanks! )))”
Taken or shaken?
Lets look into the talent value chain Talent Era, The: Achieving a High Return on Talent. It starts with low skilled but trainable talents which finally ends in the Idea Talent chain. Premier School education and value adds align the talent to the market need where demand is highest. Interest is often aligned to where it pays the most. What may seem arrogance becomes necessity, beyond a point. Consistent upgrade of education and selecting areas of work tumults the pay-market. Even when there is a recession or sudden shrinkage in the job market, the demand perpetually shifts in the other direction. Consulting may shrink, but operation jobs would be available. If operations no longer pays well, marketing or sales would.
Where does this lead to ?
Point of reference will govern the choice for an individual. If they are willing to pay the price for their achievements, they would screen through boundaries, creating new landmarks.
One size fits all ?
One odd case doesn’t define all. Aspirations will remain different. Bright ones will make money through what they love doing the most. The glory of contributing to the society will fuel the Entrepreneurial pool. During one of the mentoring sessions, that I received from Samvedan, we discussed on this case. Here are a few thoughts as shared by him, on what contributes to one’s success
- Bow to power divine – Randomization of respect and vanity may chart personal success. However, growing beyond the limiting standards, would require one to seek beyond ego harnessing, beyond the current gains. An adulation to a superior for an incentive if substituted with acclimation for greater good, will charter a long term growth.
- Formative years – Character is a result of shifting the focus from quick gains through short methods to a challenging, but a life-long venture for honest results. A leisure adds to the process as much as the industry does. Choosing them mindfully gears the thought-process even through difficult times. One of the questions, which Samvedan asks while interviewing senior professionals, is what do they do, when they no longer require to be productive?
- Accidental personal growth or an evolution -Prosperity and growth should remain a natural result of your work. A series of incidents that can push an individual to greatness, however risks pockets of limiting belief. Whereas, a guided approach will weed away from being a burnout. Pruning the aggression for career progression, follows the Outlier’s theory.
Happiness or being rich need not become a Hobson’s choice. Both the areas remain independent of each other, freeing the variables. Just as a work-life-balance need not be a loser’s pride, so is wealth no parameter for success. The incremental growth from creating the value that matters, breeds success.
Suggested reading : Attrition and retention hocus-focus