When he started out, Sampson found it easy to delude himself into thinking of himself as he wanted to be, not as what he was. However, as he talked with people, he got a better idea of what really made him tick-his strengths, his weaknesses, his interests, his values, and their priorities. It would have been difficult for anyone else to convince Sampson of the right answer-he had to find it himself. Your best guarantee of making a sound decision is to go through the tedious hard work Sampson did. Your background and needs are different-so your job characteristics and priorities will be different, but you can use Sampson's example as a guide. If pursued aggressively, this process can be accomplished in a month.
In evaluating alternate choices (such as career alternatives) it is often helpful to put a value on each of the priorities and then to rate each factor for each alternative. For example, "Chance of getting" might be 20 percent, with "Production executive" being given a rating of 16 percent and "Teaching business-consulting" 5 percent. Then a cumulative score for each alternative can be tallied for comparison. Be careful not to put undue emphasis on this refinement. For example, an alternative with a total value of 82 is clearly more in line with your priorities than one with 67, but it probably has about the same rating for you as one with 80.
Having made the decision on his job goal, Sampson polished up his resume and specifically targeted it to a production executive's job. He then started an intensive marketing campaign for such a job. Having improved his skills in getting in to see people and conducting interviews, he found his batting average increased. Several of the people he saw in his career-alternative phase were helpful again. As a middle-aged executive it took time to develop a number of high-quality job alternatives but they did come! Finally, he had three good offers.
To evaluate the offers, Sampson used a process which was similar to that for evaluating his alternative-career possibilities. First, he rated the key considerations by using the matrix. Of course several of the factors considered in evaluating career alternatives were no longer valid: length of search, chances of getting, and capital needed. However, various new factors became important. "Why was the job available?" became important in rating the organizational dynamics of the job. Other new factors were: the company's reputation, the base to move from (if the job failed), pressure, traveling, the type of people, and prestige.
Salary assumed much less importance at this stage because all three offers were about the same. A much more important aspect of salary was the likelihood of it being available over a long period of time (i.e., the risk factor).
Sampson's evaluation of the three offers was:
- Production manager, ABC Metals-he had serious reservations about the company's future, its reputation for handling people, his negative reaction to several of the people there, and the way that the job had been structured. By this time he had become aware of the fact that sometimes an employer sets up a job without carefully structuring it. The person hired to fill it fails because of the lack of the employer's foresight. Unfortunately, the person hired is the biggest loser.
- Facilities planning manager, Monarch Co. his overall reaction to the company, the type of requirements of the job, its people, and its long-term future was positive. He had serious questions about becoming a super-specialist in a limited field (one he was not intimately familiar with, but which he felt he could handle well). However, he felt this was offset by the excellent reputation of the company. He was disappointed in the salary-it was the lowest of the three alternatives-but he felt this would be offset in time by the company's more certain growth prospects. The job involved more traveling than he wanted, but this was a drawback he felt he could live with.
- Plant superintendent, Foremost Machine-he liked the company, its type of business (very similar to his last company), and its overall reputation. On the minus side, he had the feeling the company was a prime candidate for a merger. In addition, his would be a line job, he'd have to deal with a tough union, and he sensed a lack of professionalism in management.
Once again, notice the further refinement of Sampson's requirements, caused by his exposure to several job possibilities. Location, job duties, risk, and the kind of people he'd be working with moved up in priority, while salary became less important.
Incidentally, many of his friends thought that Sampson could have gotten a "better" job than he did. In fact, two of his closest and most successful friends strongly recommended that he take a job with a start-up, high-technology company and "make a lot of money." Sampson knew, however, the high risk of these companies and the tremendous turnover in personnel. He realized such a job wasn't for him. This is a concrete example of the need to evaluate all advice regardless of who gives it.
One final thought. Sampson is reasonably sure he wouldn't have made the decision he did if the Monarch Metal job had been offered to him in the first month. At that time he was thinking primarily of management consulting, buying his own business, or being a plant superintendent or manufacturing vice president. The time taken to make his final decision in an orderly and careful manner was time well spent-and probably necessary for Sampson to take, not just to find a job, but to find a really suitable one.
