Friday 11 July 2008

Do you prefer a stimulating job or more money?

Now I'm going to say something that may surprise you.

Boo!

No, it's not that. I was mildly surprised to read in The IOD Director Magazine this month that the fifth annual Happiness Index in a survey compiled by The City & Guilds revealed that workers from over 20 different occupations had ranked money as being only fourth on their list of criteria for judging happiness in the workplace. I know, you're asking, so why were Tanker Drivers missed off the list?

Highest rated was that their job must be stimulating and interesting. Second, was job security, pretty sensible in the current climate, and third was work-life balance.

Why is this of great importance?

Larger employers offer wide ranges of incentive and employee benefit options these days - some in quite complex systems which allow employees to 'trade' benefits like extra holiday for less pension contribution or similar things. These options are innovative and sensible when compared to the Happiness Index results because work-life balance is high on employee agendas.

However, small to medium (SM) sized businesses have a real difficulty keeping up. Not only are such benefit options tough to implement as the impact is not easy to quantify not just in terms of cost but impact to the business (e.g. if more staff opt for flexible hours or more holidays, how does this impact the company's ability to take orders or keep customers happy etc), but with the demands of things like maternity/paternity, keeping up with Employment and Equalities Law, taxation and many of the new costs to businesses, it becomes increasingly more difficult to tackle employee benefits and well-being as well.

The most obvious and simple way in which SM companies try to compete with larger companies is to offer similar all round salary and bonus benefits. For the more progressive, stock options are sometimes offered although they are not ranked as a 'here and now' benefit. But, the survey is saying that isn't going to compete with larger companies as money is only fourth on the agenda.

A Practical Example

I have recently been advising a lady who was offered a job by a small company - nice salary package and exactly her industry. However, after being contacted recently by a household name in media and datanetworks, the lady stopped in her tracks not because the salary and bonus was better, in fact it wasn't, but because there were a clear set of other benefits like car allowance, comprehensive private health car, a substantial contribution to a pension plan by the employer, discounts off their own brand products but most importantly was the fact it was a large firm and therefore offered greater job security.

Recessionary Times

In tougher times, larger firms offer a safer haven for many workers as the theory is that they have the capability to ride out the storm better as they are larger, offer better employee benefits and the chances are the jobs will be similar.

However, I would not necessarily agree with this assessment. We are seeing several large companies recently who have enjoyed significant success starting to hit, quite literally, brick walls. Northern Rock and the banking community don't look quite as a safe as before, Persimmons and the building sector is particularly vulnerable, while the fall out from the credit crunch will hit larger firms who are highly geared harder than profitable smaller ones who do not have massive borrowing.

For the bold, small companies who can adapt to change more nimbly and seek out opportunities faster, a recession can be a good thing as the larger firms try to shore up their positions and go back to their core competencies in the hope of weathering the storm.

Smaller companies are not a bad option but it may mean we have to break our reliance on the Happiness Index as there is an element of risk involved.

So how do smaller companies compete for talent?

Recruiters take their money where they can get it and larger firms not only pay the bills but offer greater opportunities. Smaller firms need professional recruiters who really know how to seek out talented individuals who are more likely to take a risk in their career in return for the benefits of success at smaller companies, who can 'sell the dream' of success at a smaller firm and above all help you compete against the morass of cheap adverts and database tracking systems to find candidates dominated by larger firms and help your company stand out and find real talent.

Recently, I helped Theorem Inc start up in the UK/Europe and find their first employee to drive their exciting business into Europe. Amongst the sea of adverts and agencies recruiting for large agencies and media firms, in just 6 weeks I had found, motivated and wrenched away from the might of the AOL Corporation, a superb, dynamic and highly capable Business Development Manager much to the delight of Theorem's CEO, Jay Kulkarni.

It wasn't about the pay necessarily, certainly not job security, it will be an interesting job if you call four walls and telephone that, work-life balance will be interesting as the boss is 5 hours behind, nor was it about the stock options as this company hadn't any at the time and had thrived without a penny borrowed from VCs.

It was about selling the dream.

That is tough for any recruiter as they have never experienced what it takes to do that so it is tough to know what to look for. Besides, in a world where transactions count, there is no point in wasting time worrying about making small companies successful when the big ones have vacancies.

Step this way

If you are a small to medium hi-tech business either entering the market from the US or are building your UK/European operation and finding it tough to attract exceptional talent in these times, then step this way. It takes a special approach to find and attract real talent and that's what I do.

Please call on +44 (0)207 193 2356 or mail me at nigel.dunn@calxeurope.com for an intial discussion.

7 comments:

Unknown said...

I'd invite anyone pondering this question to review the dozens of academic papers published over the last 50 years which explore the same question. Despite flying in the face of perceived ‘wisdom’ they generally conclude that money (or indeed any form of extrinsic motivator) is not as effective as the intrinsic motivation derived from having stimulating, purposeful work, the opportunity to work collaboratively and having good relationships with one’s peers and managers.

Or you your could shortcut the entire academic research route and read Alfie Kohn’s excellent book “Punished by Rewards”.

Or better yet, think about your own experience. Consider your career, and that of colleagues you have worked with and answer this question:

Why do most people change jobs?

Money is a factor, for sure. But as the City & Guilds survey revealed it certainly is not top of the list.

Anonymous said...

Morning Nigel,

As some of pointed out - you've created an artificial dichotomy. Why not a stimulating job that pays more money.

Or even reality - which is that both are on a continuum, not a binary toggle switch. So to me the question is, "absent incredibly stimulating and wildly well paying - what balance do you want to strike?" I'd even go beyond that and say neither, if you wont be happy.

About 20 years ago I was offered a position that would be very intellectually stimulating, and extremely well paying. My base salary would have been so high that I'm not making that salary now (although in 2008 dollars I probably am). But I would have been unhappy because of that control thing. I would have had to represent people I didn't particularly like, and I would have been limited in my taking on clients I do like but who can't pay the normal rates.

So now, 20 years later am I sorry I turned down the stimulating job that paid more? Nope. If I walk out the door today, and get hit by a car. I will be exceedingly pissed. But also I will be able to say I didn't wait for retirement to be happy.

Nina
www.bizblawg.com

bigib said...

I'm up for stimulating job. I would like to be able to wake up in the morning and come home happy...

http://www.bigib.com
http://bigibdesigns.blogspot.com

Germán said...

I go for the money, but I'm not a mercenary... I have a price, but employers can only buy my time, not my life.
Sometimes big salaries go together with a life dedicated to work, not having time to spend with family and friends.

CarrieC said...

Salary is important, but it doesn't even make the top five on my list:

- Be appreciated and recognized for my efforts and contributions
- Respect
- Trust
- Opportunities for growth and success
- Work/life balance

I'm curious to know why smaller companies find it harder to provide job security and work/life balance? My personal experience has been that both were easier to attain at a smaller company than at a large one.

CarrieC said...

Salary is important, but it doesn't even make the top five on my list:

- Be appreciated and recognized for my efforts and contributions
- Respect
- Trust
- Opportunities for growth and success
- Work/life balance

I'm curious to know why smaller companies find it harder to provide job security and work/life balance? My personal experience has been that both were easier to attain at a smaller company than at a large one.

Salik Rafiq, Freelance Software Developer, salik@smrfreelancing.com said...

Hi Nigel,
I am a struggling freelancer so right now its all about money. But if I were to get a long-term contract I would prefer it to be challenge something where I will pick up new skills and work with great people.
But it would have serious competition with working in my own office, in my own working hours and taking time-off between jobs. Eventhough I earn half of what I would do as even a permanent employee. The family life is excellent.
Maybe that's why I no longer get any employers looking at my CV?