In my experience, I have had to choose between 2 different jobs, within the same area of work, and in nearby locations, making the compensation, and company reputation, the main factors in which job I chose to take. The first reason why compensation was a big factor was for my own financial stability. I knew that after this job I would be going to school, and wouldn’t have as much time to work/make money, so I knew that a large portion of the money I made at the job would be saved. Another factor was the value and recognition I would be receiving at each job. The compensation I received was a form of valuing what I would be as an employee of the company. When one offer was just below the average market compensation, and the other was marginally above it, it made me feel that my position was of higher value at one company, compared to the other. This brings me to the comparison with the market factor. Comparing the compensation packages gave me the ability to make informed decisions about the job opportunities, and how well each company may be doing financially. Is the company that is offering me a lower wage financially stable enough to offer me a job after I graduated college? Possibly not. The opportunity cost was also a factor here in my decision. Will taking one job over the other make me lose the opportunity to be with a company that has a higher chance of retaining me as an employee. Not only do I want to think about the current compensation, but also look into the future and try to evaluate if my job will still be there later on.
Within compensation, there are many factors, as listed about, that dictate how we behave when choosing a job. From financial stability to my value, the comparison with the market, and the opportunity cost of each position. This can make it very difficult to decide which job would be the better option when both positions have similar roles.
Leave a Reply