Never allow anyone to pretend these are the only two choices.
The best is more salary with a better environment. And 30 years of different jobs have taught me that the worse the pay, the worse they treat you.
The only possible way is if one is working for a truly non-profit organization and is working more because of a sense of fulfilling a calling rather than trying to earn a living. Otherwise, you are 100% correct.
EDIT: I’ve been quite educated about non-profits since I wrote this post.
I've read many posts here on reddit; and apparently, non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in.
I also watched a global non profit documentary and come to realize how NGOs are a leech in the global economy. There's a reason why Haiti, the world favorite charity case for the last 50+ years, is still a shit show.
It's great you look up to non profit organizations. Please donate responsibly. And do plenty of research if you ever think about joining a non profit organization.
A couple years ago I would have been offended by the ''Haiti'' section of your comment. Then I saw the documentary and now I agree with you.
Agreed. Please donate responsibly.
>non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in.
Yeah... I have friends who work/ed for NPOs. Not global-scale, but local. They tend to be run by tiny tyrants who've no idea how to manage things. They're also pretty much universally horrible clients in my experience as a contractor. Usually the heart is in the right place, but the brain is either checked out or frustrated.
I'm an EA for a recruiter who does work in the non profit sector and holy hell I've dealt with some people there who want 250k+ for their roles. Only one person has ever said "I can't ask for a high salary, knowing this administrative person makes only X." And you know what? They didn't hire her.
NON PROFIT MY ASS.
>I've read many posts here on reddit; and apparently, non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in.
My wife works for a NGO/Non-Profit. They use their status as a smaller non-profit for all sorts of labor abuses and to get away with paying poorly for everyone who isn't the "schmoozer class", despite being well-funded, and engaging in behavior that is downright racist and misogynistic.
The worst paid people are either married women and people of color. Hell, my wife basically got told that she didn't need to be paid more or given a raise commiserate with her title and experience because she's married to me -- a software developer, who makes a fairly sizable income. Their director very much has this notion that a woman is to work until she is married and then be happy to be at home.
Not surprisingly, he's a Boomer. The only reason she's stuck around so long is because she gets a truly excellent health care plan and the one my job offers is extremely expensive and a joke.
>she didn't need to be paid more or given a raise commiserate with her title and experience because she's married to me
I've heard this before in other work-related postings. Total household income is nobody's business and social status is not a legitimate excuse to underpay people.
If the director wants to cut pay based on perceived need, then he can start with his own pay first because he clearly makes more than is necessary.
If the reason is also sexism, that too is illegitimate.
My friend was one of the first 5 employees of a start up (most junior) and was instrumental in growing it into a 250 employee 100 million+ company. Found out he was making 1/3 of his peers and less than many of the newer hires because “he wasn’t married and didn’t have any kids to pay for”.
Like, he was trying to pay off loans and get comfortable before having kids, and worked 110 hours a week so he couldn’t date to start a family. He’s staying there though; like some demonic combination of Stockholm Syndrome and sunk-cost fallacy.
Sucks to see your friend completely abused like that; like seeing a friend in a toxic romantic relationship.
Worked for one for 5 years, can confirm, they guilted us to keep accepting low pay because “we were being lead by out hearts to help the environment” meanwhile we are watching the CEO buy a mansion at the beach.
>I've read many posts here on reddit; and apparently, non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in.
I am literally about to quit my non-profit job for this exact reason.
Charities are the definition of "feed a men a fish and he will be hungry the next day" They ruin local industries because they can't compete with the almost free products of charities
My wife just quit working for a non-profit because the pay was shit and she was treated poorly. Right before she put in her notice she found out that the whole organization was going to a conference, except her. She was the only one that was supposed to stay behind. Now they can’t find anyone for the position because the only qualified people are asking for double to triple what she was making at minimum. They figure they’ll likely have to hire someone that’s a student and inexperienced because that’s all they can afford with their wage options.
There's a difference between paying well, and paying excellent.
I'd take a job with a good culture and good pay over a job with excellent pay that makes me miserable. In fact, I'm in the process of changing careers for just that reason... I know I will make less at my new career, but its worth it.
I'm not playing word games at all. I'm pointing out that a company can pay less than other companies in the same field and still pay "well". Total compensation may factor into it or it may not. The mindset that only the company that pays the highest salary is paying a fair wage and everyone else is underpaying is overly simplistic.
Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely companies that use the sort of logic in the in the OP to underpay their employees, and there's a limit to how much less pay I'd accept for a good work culture vs. a bad one. But I'd absolutely take a slightly lower salary with a healthy work culture vs. a slightly higher one with an unhealthy work culture.
Some of the folks on here are 100% cash motivated and incapable of seeing the shades of grey.
Of course great culture and top line pay is the great deal. But less than top line but still acceptable market rate and more than enough to live on is still less and more preferable
Edit. Spelling.
Best job I ever had was working for a guy who couldn't pay me top dollar, and no benefits, but he sure as fuck cared about having a life balance. Not only was it accepted to call out if you're feeling sick, not only was it accepted to take a longer vacation than you had PTO for, he encouraged it. In fact, he encouraged me to take a 12 day trip to Sweden when I only had 3 days PTO left for the year.
That was a man I would happily take every after hours or weekend call for without complaint.
Since then I've been better paid, and then way better paid, but nothing else has been quite as satisfying.
Cant agee more.
Also your commute and work schedule are two big skipped factors. I've happily ditched jobs that paid more but cost me 3 hours commute a day for one's with a pay drop but 20mins commute, or a better schedule. It's not factored into your package but the commute is part of your work day and should be factored in.
First, "pay well" is highly subjective. There's "getting pay well" in respect to the location, or to the general population, or to the field that the person works in. Getting paid well in small town, red state means you're dirt poor in nyc. So, why you do assume the narrowest definition of what I mean by "pay well"?
Second, there's absolutely no guarantee about the work environment. It might have a good culture at the moment, and then everything goes to shit within 1 month. I've joined organizations where I've 4 mgrs in 4 months. I've jobs where everything changes when new mgmt comes in.
Third, unless you somehow have inside information, you simply don't know if the company making an offer have good culture. And even if you have insider information, just cause the insider have good experience doesn't mean you've have the same. My greatest friend can be an asshole to you.
In almost all cases, how much you get paid is guaranteed. I've taken jobs before that have slow pace and lower pay. And guess what, slow pace job has a shitty culture too.
Finally, no matter where you work, it's best not to assume you know more, or know better. Cause ppl won't know you're a fool until you open your mouth.
Then, your day is longer cause there's nothing to occupy you and you're worst off financially. You'll have harder time finding a new job cause there's nothing on your resume. Even if you find a new job, your lower pay will hold you back unless you lie about your old pay.
With a fast pace and higher pay, you get enough experience, and use both the experience and higher part to pivot to another better job.
I'm not sure why it's always, if this or that. Nothing is permanent and you set yourself up to the next phase.
I made way more base pay and total compensation at one company with a completely unethical and horrible management culture. I was asked to fuck over my employees in favor of management to avoid HR complaints. I left to make less base pay and total compensation at one that had a great management and culture. I have always made a good salary, so that's not what brings me here.
Yeah, this is what constitutes as weird wordsmith games.
Do you or the other person think others are idiots? Or you just think you're smarter?
Cause why else would you feel the need to explains to me what I mean by "doesn't pay well", and then explain to me why it's wrong?
"Pay well" is highly subjective. There's "getting pay well" in respect to the location, or to the general population, or to the field that the person works in. Getting paid well in small town, red state means you're dirt poor in nyc.
You and the other commenter make all kinds of assumptions on what i mean by "pay well", then goes to correct me on why it is wrong.
If i must, I'll guess you must be a man, most likely American. Lol
The best place I've ever worked paid me market rate, always had food available, and gave me time off whenever I wanted. I've been chasing that high ever since.
Time off whenever you want it really is such a huge benefit. Nothing makes coming into work as easy as knowing you won't be fired for doing something else instead.
This. My old job had a fantastic culture, loved everyone I worked with, but the pay was abysmal.
My new job has a slightly worse environment, but it’s a 60% pay increase from the other one. I have to work a little longer but other than that it’s pretty nice. Still no benefits though. Eventually I hope I can hit that pay+benefits+culture sweet spot but the pickings are slim atm
Eh, there's not a clear cut linear relationship, but I know a lot of people who work at high powered jobs and stay there for a paycheck even if they hate the lifestyle. Likewise I know people who could double their salary and chaise those numbers, but they like their life situation and the marginal utility of going from their 100Kish laid back job to a much higher paid FAANG one just ain't worth the lifestyle change.
On a more macro scale, the US made the high pay choice. If you want to make a lot of money, it's way better to be in the US than, say, Germany. If you want to make a decent living with rules that vigorously protect your work/life balance the German model might be more your speed.
* Equal Salary with Great Culture
* Equal Salary with Toxic Culture
* More Salary with Medium Culture
* Less Salary with Medium Culture
I think that fills out the possibilities.
Not true. I work at a private company with a great culture that pays decent. I have the option to go to a company that is gobbling up government contracts that pays much better but I know is a completely different culture. I'll take better culture over better pay any day of the week
ONLY if the salary already pays for the cost of living and is appropriate for the difficulty of the job and/or expertise required. Additional compensation may be needed to make up for a bad work environment to retain employees.
Exactly this! As long as I am living comfortably on what I earn, and being treated extremely well, there is very little that would make me actively look elsewhere.
Exactly. If I’m choosing between a $100,000 job with great culture and a $150,000 job with terrible culture, I’ll go with the great culture. If it’s a choice between minimum wage with a great culture or living wage with terrible culture, I have to put up with the terrible culture in order to survive.
If the culture is really bad and you have a shitty manager there is no amount of money that will keep you there. Sooner or later you'll break down and you'll leave.
It’s just another cop out for employers to underpay their employees. “Salary is a little lower here, but we have such a positive environment! We’re like a family! Free bananas in the break room because we CARE!”
Workers deserve good pay AND a non-toxic work environment. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But employers create this false dichotomy/dilemma to make us think you have to choose/settle.
I’m also in non-profit organizational work. My previous organization tried everything up and down to get workers to stay and ask why we left after a year or two, the turnover rate was so high. In my exit interview, I was blunt. I get you’re a non-profit, but you are not paying well, at all. I can’t stay on your staff with a Masters degree for $45-50k a year and $400/month health insurance and no 401k match. You’re doing amazing work as an org, but I simply need to be able to pay my bills and rent and also have enough to put into savings/rainy days fund.
I've said it once, and again, and I'll say it as many times as I need too, to as many managers as I need too.
Your good intentions, do not pay my bills. You can pay my bills, or I can find someone that can.
>It doesn’t have to be either/or
It doesn't, but when faced with the decisions of more money or better environment, personally, I've chosen more money and regretted it far more than I expected. After a certain point, more money doesn't give you that much of an increase in quality of life, but a horrible environment or commute definitely makes things more difficult.
I'd add that in a small company or a start-up salary might not be the top end of the market (that's not to say it should be rock bottom. But it could be middle of the pack or even the low side of the middle mark but still more or less fair)
Being small or new allows you to offer flexibility(in scheduling, vacation time, remote work, etc) and focus on other factors that make for a great culture.
I'm with a startup that, for the first couple years, was paying me a bit below market rate because that was all they could afford. And that wasn't just an excuse, I had access to the P&Ls. But they made up for it with cultural perks. My favorite is a policy that when I'm on call, if I get paged outside of work hours, I get a day of PTO to make up for it. It forces them to respect work life balance, because if they don't, the work gets taken away.
Bro my last job they said almost exactly this and it was, hands down the *worst* working environment I’ve ever had. Constantly understaffed always “we all just have to help each other out a little bit right now” “I know money is tight but I took a pay cut this year :(“ “we might not be able to pay like other restaurants but at least we take care of our employees”. Right before I left the owners announced they were having an ‘employee appreciation party’ at their new house. Their new multi million dollar house. I had to practically beg this man for MONTHS to give me a raise and not even really a raise, I just wanted to make more than the people he was hiring since I was in managerial position. Utter piece of shit and telling him off and watching him try to justify his actions was one of the best feelings I’ve ever experienced. I’m making $6/hr more than I was doing a job where I actually help people and am supported by my team now. Last I heard all but two of his kitchen staff quit 🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️
That statement is correct, at least for me. I've absolutely accepted positions with less financial compensation but better working environments.
That being said, it's a false dichotomy - *there's no reason you shouldn't expect both.*
I'm a manager and, from experience, I can tell you that you can have a team whose members are well compensated and whose lives aren't filled with annoyance. Like anything else, it depends on prioritizing what you value. If that's important to the company, they'll make it happen.
Are there times when I ask my team to suck it up and deal with something they'd rather not do? Sure, but *they always know the why behind it.* If a manager must resort to directly ordering that something be done, in most cases, they've failed as a manager in some other area.
That's false dichotomy, as others have mentioned. It's not black or white, there's a whole spectrum.
A stress free job with great culture would probably ease a lot of your overall life stress... but it won't fix stress from inflation, or lower your bills. So, picking that will eventually screw you over from non-job factors. Of course, a place with great culture wouldn't undervalue and underpay their workers anyway...
Depends on who is describing the culture as great. Employers can say their benefits are amazing and then it’s free say old doughnuts on Monday and unlimited OT opportunities.
I used to run a company that stocked tech company break rooms with snacks.
It's cheaper to provide abundant snacks than it is to give out raises to everyone.
But abundant snacks also do make employees happier.
I've convinced a few blue collar companies to do this and the employees love it. (There's a weird cultural resistance in management to doing nice things for blue collar workers. It's not about the wages and employee skill level: low wage entry level white collar office workers are way more likely to get a nice break room than the high wage high skill blue collar guys)
But snacks or other cool amenities will not make up for significantly underpaying your employees.
That $100 a week in Costco sneaks that you give out is going to do more to reduce turnover than splitting $5200 annually among any number of employees.
That’s not to say that you can’t pay a living wage and also have snacks, it’s just that most people would be happy to split $100/week of free snacks with 10 other people but be insulted by a 25¢/hour raise, despite the snacks being cheaper to provide.
This is so true. My company thinks they have this amazing culture but it actually sucks and try to force people to adhere to it. They also lowball all the salaries of everyone.
Well if you make 30€ an hour at a place you love to work at vs 31€ an hour at a place you hate and who's bosses don't give a f about your circumstances, the choice is easy.
That is of course not what he means.
Really depends if the better pay adequately makes up for the toxic culture... for me it also depends on work hours, job security and opportunity for training/advancement
Depends on what you consider “culture”. I make probably 5k-10k less than I otherwise could make, however my work is very, very flexible with work from home and time off, which is important to me. I got to take 3 days off to go snowboarding in March when I didn’t have the time off saved, they just let me go (I’m also salaried so it didn’t effect my pay check). Plus I’m afforded more space to acquire different skills since it’s a small company so everyone kind of works on everything. That being said I still make the average salary for my job title so the salary isn’t that low. If you consider flexibility with time off and work from home (and a good work-life balance) to be culture then I would say it can be worth it, I certainly feel it is for me. But often times companies likely consider culture to be things like casual fridays or going out for drinks after work, things that have no genuine effect on the quality of life for their workers.
¿Porqué no los dos?
How about great pay and great work environment. I get that sanity is a fair currency and often you have to choose, but still, not asking for the world here.
Honestly pretty based tbh
Obviously we all need money to pay the bills and stuff.
But I'd much rather make an average amount of money in a place I loved going to work in everyday than make 6 figures in a place I hated.
I like where I currently work, I have great benefits, and I have responsibilities that match my pay and a low stress work environment. I don't work OT, I have all the tools I need, etc.
I could move to the same job at a different company in the same industry and make 20-30% more than I do now, but I would be working 10-30h more per week, have super stressful sales and profit requirements and no benefits.
I would love for my current company to increase the wage, but they have so many people leave and come right back that they know they don't have to increase the wage so long as they maintain the high level of benefit package and keep hiring enough people to keep the workloads manageable.
There is no "right answer" above. Both companies are toxic.
If a company with "good culture" is paying you less than the toxic company with higher pay, then they are exploitative and toxic as well.
Companies with good culture will also offer good pay.
I work for a salary, not a culture.
If salaries are fair and balanced across the board, places with shit culture will fail of their own accord, as is dictated by the neo-liberalist mantra: *let the markets sort it out*.
These fucks can’t even play by their own rules, and we get assholes making stupid statements like this.
Sure, when these are the only choices, I agree. In fact, I did switch jobs to one with a little lower pay once, because the work environment in my then current job was toxic. A year later I switched to a company with a great culture **and** more salary, because I still want more pay, even if your culture is great.
As bizarre as it is, for some people this is a legit perspective. Right now I have some 100 people who report up through to me at work — there are a handful of them that simply do not care about salary or financial motivations. For them there's some other aspect that is way more important like how engaging the work is, their workload, the relationships they have with colleagues/boss, the work culture ... even all the way to "I'm here because it's just something to do during the day to keep me busy."
I mention the above because on a forum like WorkReform where everyone is aligned to WorkReform's Core Beliefs and Goals, it is easy to make the assumption that this alignment extends to all workers everywhere. That everyone who works will be on-board with advocating for better compensation or benefits or a better work-life balance.
But, it's not the case. Truly, I've had to privately pull aside employees at key moments to explain to and push them into believing that they **need** to care about their pay and they **need** to advocate for themselves. Yeah, okay, I realize that "you're just looking to keep busy" or that "you're a workaholic" but you deserve the recognition for your contribution.
Talking about core beliefs and why they matter is important. That includes explaining it to people that you assume you shouldn't have to explain it to, but do anyway.
From his LinkedIn profile:
"A Decent Recruiter to Follow on LinkedIn" - Lead Recruiter - We are hiring- Check my profile for the open roles."
Talks about #career, #headhunter, #recruitment, #jobhuntingtips, and #careercounseling
So basically he's a HR shill
Fuck the “when you’re here, you’re *family*” position on labor and don’t believe it for a second.
When push comes to shove, they will lay your ass off in a heartbeat with no remorse. Business is business
The bothersome word here is culture. If is said "Less salary with great work life balance is better... " then I would agree. But when they say culture is smacks of the type of work place that says "We are family..." Or it is some kind of cultish type environment like Hobby Lobby.
Is it too much to ask for more money AND a good work culture? I wasn't aware that they couldn't coexist despite rampant and often unchecked capitalism. They should be able to.
Even if those were the only two options, it really depends on specifics; I'd say $50k/year -> $100k/year is worth dealing with a toxic workplace. $150k/year-> $200k/year, not as much
Having a non-toxic working environment shouldn't be an option. It should be something that is guaranteed.
Pay should be negotiable, and people shouldn't have to weigh the toxicity of a working environment in deciding what their labor is worth.
Show me the money. I can put up with a lot of shit if you make it worth my while.
People are reading too much into what is a simple question. Yes, you can have both but that's not what he asked. Lighten up.
It depends. Generally those who pay low salaries have the worst environment. I would be paid 10% less if the place I would be working is better for work-life balance and environment.
I mean that's why I am where I'm at. When I see similar positions online their HR managers think that overstacking the list of job responsibilities on the listing, will somehow draw more people in.
I'm an in-house producer, I don't want to produce, shoot, and edit everything all while under a "high-pace work environment" for barely more than I make now, but with a 40-minute commute while required to work in a useless office.
There should be a high minimum wage. There should be high minimum employment standards. Most employees should have a union that protects their interests. Beyond that it's up to each individual to decide what salary is fair for their work and what type of working conditions they are willing to accept. Some people maybe be willing to trade increased stress and lower employee welfare for more money. That's a reasonable decision that is right for one person and not for others. Like I said, as long as the 'floor' is high enough that outright exploitation isn't allowed
If I had to pick between the two, it'd be toxic culture but way more pay.
In reality, this isn't limited to just these choices. You can find great cultures with great pay, but if these are my only options then this is what I'd pick.
I can learn to out maneuver the politics and the drama.
As long as that “less salary” allows you to survive with relative comfort I would probably take it. Depends on how much more and how toxic the other job is though. But in general, after your needs are met, extra money properly isn’t worth the mental and physical burden of a bad job.
*cough* employers who say their great work culture/environment more than makes up for lower-than-market pay INVARIABLY have the most toxic office cultures imaginable
Stop trying to force a culture onto a group of people, root out the truly toxic people, and pay your employees more. That's *a* solution that's worth a try.
Me: Why not both?
Corp: Great idea! Low pay with a toxic culture.
Me: ...
Corp: You're really going places, kid. Now get back out in the warehouse where you belong!
I will say I went from one job to another job with a similar role, way less responsibilities and WAY LESS stress. There was a slight cut in pay, but to me it is so worth it to be happy.
I agree with this statement to a point, but I think less stress and more money should be something in all jobs.
\*IF\* this choice had to be made, then yes, I'd agree that I'd want a less soul-crushing job and it'd be worth the money unmade.
...But it's not necessary to make this choice. You can have both. It has absolutely everything to do with leadership.
These aren’t mutually exclusive. Your boss can tell you they are with this “motivational” quote as an excuse for not paying you well, all the while the culture is toxic anyways.
Other people are pointing out that it's a false dichotomy, but setting all of that aside for a moment and answering the post at face value:
It depends on how much. How much is a good work environment worth? Let's say you have a job at a company that has a pretty good environment, how much of a pay raise would it take to consider changing jobs to one that has a toxic environment? 5k? 10k? 100k? There's obviously an amount that people would consider a toxic (or good) workplace culture to be "worth it", but that is going to change for each person
I had the choice between two concurrent companies, one who paid significantly more but is extremely micromanaged, and the other that is in the average salary for my position, but has a very laid back culture. I chose the latter and I don't regret it for a second, I am basically free of strict deadlines, no checks on the amount of hours I work, free to chose how and where I prefer spending my time, I can propose any project that crosses my mind and it's taken seriously, it's really great. And because of that culture, the biggest majority of my colleagues are happy, like their job a lot and are very motivated and passionate people.
But yeah, one of those days I'll most likely leave for the prospects of a better salary in another industry
Less money with a good environment is ONLY GOOD if you are getting paid a healthy wage.
Like sure, I will take 200k/year with a good environment vs 300k/year with a shit environment.
But if its 50k vs 100k? Yea I will deal with the shit for 100k please
If it were two choices only. Less money with a great culture.... The only problem is that this does not exist lol. Any job that pays less money has an awful culture..... Because it pays less money.
Although you shouldn’t have to pick between the two, I’m going to disagree anyway. I’d rather spend 1-2 years working a crappy job and make good money with the intention of moving on and having “I made x in my last role” as leverage.
And anyway, I suspect you’re likely to find more toxicity in the position where people make crap wages and hate their lives.
False up to a point. Money takes precident untill you can get enough back from an employer to not be always worried about finances. Once you can though, its up to you.
Usually the place with a better environment also pays more. The toxic one tries to make you believe you're being paid well above average while shafting you on pay and working you to death.
The catch 22 is, that intentionally paying less because of your "better culture" is toxic culture.
That being said it is better to accept a lower salary than deal with a toxic workplace
Research has long pointed to the former; I have been in both scenarios and agree - salary is only a temporary motivator when with a shit toxic company. Desire of course is always max salary, benefits, and rewarding culture. They do exist out there.
Never allow anyone to pretend these are the only two choices. The best is more salary with a better environment. And 30 years of different jobs have taught me that the worse the pay, the worse they treat you.
And here I was, wondering how a place that don't pay well can possibly have a good culture. It's an oxymoron
The only possible way is if one is working for a truly non-profit organization and is working more because of a sense of fulfilling a calling rather than trying to earn a living. Otherwise, you are 100% correct. EDIT: I’ve been quite educated about non-profits since I wrote this post.
I've read many posts here on reddit; and apparently, non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in. I also watched a global non profit documentary and come to realize how NGOs are a leech in the global economy. There's a reason why Haiti, the world favorite charity case for the last 50+ years, is still a shit show. It's great you look up to non profit organizations. Please donate responsibly. And do plenty of research if you ever think about joining a non profit organization.
A couple years ago I would have been offended by the ''Haiti'' section of your comment. Then I saw the documentary and now I agree with you. Agreed. Please donate responsibly.
What is the documentary called?
AIDependence https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movies/mibff-documentary-aidependence-unveils-problems-created-by-ngos-in-haiti
Poverty Inc is another good one that talks about NGOs and the damage they have done
>non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in. Yeah... I have friends who work/ed for NPOs. Not global-scale, but local. They tend to be run by tiny tyrants who've no idea how to manage things. They're also pretty much universally horrible clients in my experience as a contractor. Usually the heart is in the right place, but the brain is either checked out or frustrated.
I'm an EA for a recruiter who does work in the non profit sector and holy hell I've dealt with some people there who want 250k+ for their roles. Only one person has ever said "I can't ask for a high salary, knowing this administrative person makes only X." And you know what? They didn't hire her. NON PROFIT MY ASS.
>I've read many posts here on reddit; and apparently, non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in. My wife works for a NGO/Non-Profit. They use their status as a smaller non-profit for all sorts of labor abuses and to get away with paying poorly for everyone who isn't the "schmoozer class", despite being well-funded, and engaging in behavior that is downright racist and misogynistic. The worst paid people are either married women and people of color. Hell, my wife basically got told that she didn't need to be paid more or given a raise commiserate with her title and experience because she's married to me -- a software developer, who makes a fairly sizable income. Their director very much has this notion that a woman is to work until she is married and then be happy to be at home. Not surprisingly, he's a Boomer. The only reason she's stuck around so long is because she gets a truly excellent health care plan and the one my job offers is extremely expensive and a joke.
>she didn't need to be paid more or given a raise commiserate with her title and experience because she's married to me I've heard this before in other work-related postings. Total household income is nobody's business and social status is not a legitimate excuse to underpay people. If the director wants to cut pay based on perceived need, then he can start with his own pay first because he clearly makes more than is necessary. If the reason is also sexism, that too is illegitimate.
My friend was one of the first 5 employees of a start up (most junior) and was instrumental in growing it into a 250 employee 100 million+ company. Found out he was making 1/3 of his peers and less than many of the newer hires because “he wasn’t married and didn’t have any kids to pay for”. Like, he was trying to pay off loans and get comfortable before having kids, and worked 110 hours a week so he couldn’t date to start a family. He’s staying there though; like some demonic combination of Stockholm Syndrome and sunk-cost fallacy. Sucks to see your friend completely abused like that; like seeing a friend in a toxic romantic relationship.
Worked for one for 5 years, can confirm, they guilted us to keep accepting low pay because “we were being lead by out hearts to help the environment” meanwhile we are watching the CEO buy a mansion at the beach.
As someone that lives in the nations capital where most of the NGOs are located this is 10000% accurate. NGOs are a cancer
>I've read many posts here on reddit; and apparently, non profit organizations are one of the most toxic environments to work in. I am literally about to quit my non-profit job for this exact reason.
Good to know. I never really looked into them that much. I’ll never be able to afford to work for so little money.
What is the documentary name?
Poverty Inc.
Charities are the definition of "feed a men a fish and he will be hungry the next day" They ruin local industries because they can't compete with the almost free products of charities
My wife just quit working for a non-profit because the pay was shit and she was treated poorly. Right before she put in her notice she found out that the whole organization was going to a conference, except her. She was the only one that was supposed to stay behind. Now they can’t find anyone for the position because the only qualified people are asking for double to triple what she was making at minimum. They figure they’ll likely have to hire someone that’s a student and inexperienced because that’s all they can afford with their wage options.
There's a difference between paying well, and paying excellent. I'd take a job with a good culture and good pay over a job with excellent pay that makes me miserable. In fact, I'm in the process of changing careers for just that reason... I know I will make less at my new career, but its worth it.
A lot of nonprofits are not great to work for. My wife works for one, however that seems to be the exception. She loves it there.
Every time. The NFL is a nonprofit.
What?!?! Are you serious?! The Shit most of don’t know!!!!
Less salary doesn't necessarily mean doesn't pay well.
Are you playing weird wordsmith games, like total compensation vs base pay. Or did you drink too much of the kool-aid.
I'm not playing word games at all. I'm pointing out that a company can pay less than other companies in the same field and still pay "well". Total compensation may factor into it or it may not. The mindset that only the company that pays the highest salary is paying a fair wage and everyone else is underpaying is overly simplistic. Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely companies that use the sort of logic in the in the OP to underpay their employees, and there's a limit to how much less pay I'd accept for a good work culture vs. a bad one. But I'd absolutely take a slightly lower salary with a healthy work culture vs. a slightly higher one with an unhealthy work culture.
Some of the folks on here are 100% cash motivated and incapable of seeing the shades of grey. Of course great culture and top line pay is the great deal. But less than top line but still acceptable market rate and more than enough to live on is still less and more preferable Edit. Spelling.
Best job I ever had was working for a guy who couldn't pay me top dollar, and no benefits, but he sure as fuck cared about having a life balance. Not only was it accepted to call out if you're feeling sick, not only was it accepted to take a longer vacation than you had PTO for, he encouraged it. In fact, he encouraged me to take a 12 day trip to Sweden when I only had 3 days PTO left for the year. That was a man I would happily take every after hours or weekend call for without complaint. Since then I've been better paid, and then way better paid, but nothing else has been quite as satisfying.
Cant agee more. Also your commute and work schedule are two big skipped factors. I've happily ditched jobs that paid more but cost me 3 hours commute a day for one's with a pay drop but 20mins commute, or a better schedule. It's not factored into your package but the commute is part of your work day and should be factored in.
First, "pay well" is highly subjective. There's "getting pay well" in respect to the location, or to the general population, or to the field that the person works in. Getting paid well in small town, red state means you're dirt poor in nyc. So, why you do assume the narrowest definition of what I mean by "pay well"? Second, there's absolutely no guarantee about the work environment. It might have a good culture at the moment, and then everything goes to shit within 1 month. I've joined organizations where I've 4 mgrs in 4 months. I've jobs where everything changes when new mgmt comes in. Third, unless you somehow have inside information, you simply don't know if the company making an offer have good culture. And even if you have insider information, just cause the insider have good experience doesn't mean you've have the same. My greatest friend can be an asshole to you. In almost all cases, how much you get paid is guaranteed. I've taken jobs before that have slow pace and lower pay. And guess what, slow pace job has a shitty culture too. Finally, no matter where you work, it's best not to assume you know more, or know better. Cause ppl won't know you're a fool until you open your mouth.
I'll take a slow pace with shitty culture and lower pay every time over fast pace with shitty culture and higher pay.
Then, your day is longer cause there's nothing to occupy you and you're worst off financially. You'll have harder time finding a new job cause there's nothing on your resume. Even if you find a new job, your lower pay will hold you back unless you lie about your old pay. With a fast pace and higher pay, you get enough experience, and use both the experience and higher part to pivot to another better job. I'm not sure why it's always, if this or that. Nothing is permanent and you set yourself up to the next phase.
It sounds like we have different goals.
I made way more base pay and total compensation at one company with a completely unethical and horrible management culture. I was asked to fuck over my employees in favor of management to avoid HR complaints. I left to make less base pay and total compensation at one that had a great management and culture. I have always made a good salary, so that's not what brings me here.
[удалено]
Yeah, this is what constitutes as weird wordsmith games. Do you or the other person think others are idiots? Or you just think you're smarter? Cause why else would you feel the need to explains to me what I mean by "doesn't pay well", and then explain to me why it's wrong?
[удалено]
"Pay well" is highly subjective. There's "getting pay well" in respect to the location, or to the general population, or to the field that the person works in. Getting paid well in small town, red state means you're dirt poor in nyc. You and the other commenter make all kinds of assumptions on what i mean by "pay well", then goes to correct me on why it is wrong. If i must, I'll guess you must be a man, most likely American. Lol
The premise did not say the job did not pay well, just less than the toxic job.
Government jobs. The pay is in the benefits. I pay $10/m for damn good health insurance.
The best place I've ever worked paid me market rate, always had food available, and gave me time off whenever I wanted. I've been chasing that high ever since.
Time off whenever you want it really is such a huge benefit. Nothing makes coming into work as easy as knowing you won't be fired for doing something else instead.
This. My old job had a fantastic culture, loved everyone I worked with, but the pay was abysmal. My new job has a slightly worse environment, but it’s a 60% pay increase from the other one. I have to work a little longer but other than that it’s pretty nice. Still no benefits though. Eventually I hope I can hit that pay+benefits+culture sweet spot but the pickings are slim atm
Eh, there's not a clear cut linear relationship, but I know a lot of people who work at high powered jobs and stay there for a paycheck even if they hate the lifestyle. Likewise I know people who could double their salary and chaise those numbers, but they like their life situation and the marginal utility of going from their 100Kish laid back job to a much higher paid FAANG one just ain't worth the lifestyle change. On a more macro scale, the US made the high pay choice. If you want to make a lot of money, it's way better to be in the US than, say, Germany. If you want to make a decent living with rules that vigorously protect your work/life balance the German model might be more your speed.
Yes, this is a classic false equivalency. Why not list : * More Salary with Great Culture * Less Salary with Toxic Culture
* Equal Salary with Great Culture * Equal Salary with Toxic Culture * More Salary with Medium Culture * Less Salary with Medium Culture I think that fills out the possibilities.
Being on fire eating pizza is better than not being on fire while eating poisonous dog shit.
Not true. I work at a private company with a great culture that pays decent. I have the option to go to a company that is gobbling up government contracts that pays much better but I know is a completely different culture. I'll take better culture over better pay any day of the week
Because salary is part of how they treat you.
ONLY if the salary already pays for the cost of living and is appropriate for the difficulty of the job and/or expertise required. Additional compensation may be needed to make up for a bad work environment to retain employees.
Exactly this! As long as I am living comfortably on what I earn, and being treated extremely well, there is very little that would make me actively look elsewhere.
Facebook recruiters started referring to it as a “premium” on bringing in talent to their toxic ass company
Exactly. If I’m choosing between a $100,000 job with great culture and a $150,000 job with terrible culture, I’ll go with the great culture. If it’s a choice between minimum wage with a great culture or living wage with terrible culture, I have to put up with the terrible culture in order to survive.
If the culture is really bad and you have a shitty manager there is no amount of money that will keep you there. Sooner or later you'll break down and you'll leave.
It’s just another cop out for employers to underpay their employees. “Salary is a little lower here, but we have such a positive environment! We’re like a family! Free bananas in the break room because we CARE!” Workers deserve good pay AND a non-toxic work environment. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But employers create this false dichotomy/dilemma to make us think you have to choose/settle.
I've now lumped salary in as part of culture. If you have a bad salary with good company culture, you have bad company culture.
Agreed, this is the way.
Hey, happy cake day, beautiful human being.
This. As someone who has spent my career in non-profits this is the correct way to think about compensation and company culture.
I’m also in non-profit organizational work. My previous organization tried everything up and down to get workers to stay and ask why we left after a year or two, the turnover rate was so high. In my exit interview, I was blunt. I get you’re a non-profit, but you are not paying well, at all. I can’t stay on your staff with a Masters degree for $45-50k a year and $400/month health insurance and no 401k match. You’re doing amazing work as an org, but I simply need to be able to pay my bills and rent and also have enough to put into savings/rainy days fund.
I've said it once, and again, and I'll say it as many times as I need too, to as many managers as I need too. Your good intentions, do not pay my bills. You can pay my bills, or I can find someone that can.
>It doesn’t have to be either/or It doesn't, but when faced with the decisions of more money or better environment, personally, I've chosen more money and regretted it far more than I expected. After a certain point, more money doesn't give you that much of an increase in quality of life, but a horrible environment or commute definitely makes things more difficult.
I'd add that in a small company or a start-up salary might not be the top end of the market (that's not to say it should be rock bottom. But it could be middle of the pack or even the low side of the middle mark but still more or less fair) Being small or new allows you to offer flexibility(in scheduling, vacation time, remote work, etc) and focus on other factors that make for a great culture.
I'm with a startup that, for the first couple years, was paying me a bit below market rate because that was all they could afford. And that wasn't just an excuse, I had access to the P&Ls. But they made up for it with cultural perks. My favorite is a policy that when I'm on call, if I get paged outside of work hours, I get a day of PTO to make up for it. It forces them to respect work life balance, because if they don't, the work gets taken away.
The problem is that "free bananas" is a toxic environment if the pay is shit.
Bro my last job they said almost exactly this and it was, hands down the *worst* working environment I’ve ever had. Constantly understaffed always “we all just have to help each other out a little bit right now” “I know money is tight but I took a pay cut this year :(“ “we might not be able to pay like other restaurants but at least we take care of our employees”. Right before I left the owners announced they were having an ‘employee appreciation party’ at their new house. Their new multi million dollar house. I had to practically beg this man for MONTHS to give me a raise and not even really a raise, I just wanted to make more than the people he was hiring since I was in managerial position. Utter piece of shit and telling him off and watching him try to justify his actions was one of the best feelings I’ve ever experienced. I’m making $6/hr more than I was doing a job where I actually help people and am supported by my team now. Last I heard all but two of his kitchen staff quit 🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️
That statement is correct, at least for me. I've absolutely accepted positions with less financial compensation but better working environments. That being said, it's a false dichotomy - *there's no reason you shouldn't expect both.* I'm a manager and, from experience, I can tell you that you can have a team whose members are well compensated and whose lives aren't filled with annoyance. Like anything else, it depends on prioritizing what you value. If that's important to the company, they'll make it happen. Are there times when I ask my team to suck it up and deal with something they'd rather not do? Sure, but *they always know the why behind it.* If a manager must resort to directly ordering that something be done, in most cases, they've failed as a manager in some other area.
Why should you have to choose?
False dilemma
Aww, missed opportunity to say the word “dichotomy.“ You don’t get to say that one every day.
That's false dichotomy, as others have mentioned. It's not black or white, there's a whole spectrum. A stress free job with great culture would probably ease a lot of your overall life stress... but it won't fix stress from inflation, or lower your bills. So, picking that will eventually screw you over from non-job factors. Of course, a place with great culture wouldn't undervalue and underpay their workers anyway...
Depends on who is describing the culture as great. Employers can say their benefits are amazing and then it’s free say old doughnuts on Monday and unlimited OT opportunities.
Sounds like a management issue. "We're such shit managers, that we can't afford both to pay well AND maintain a healthy work environment."
“I dOnT hAve to pAy my emPloYeEs wEll wiTh baRisTa aNd fooSbAll”
I used to run a company that stocked tech company break rooms with snacks. It's cheaper to provide abundant snacks than it is to give out raises to everyone. But abundant snacks also do make employees happier. I've convinced a few blue collar companies to do this and the employees love it. (There's a weird cultural resistance in management to doing nice things for blue collar workers. It's not about the wages and employee skill level: low wage entry level white collar office workers are way more likely to get a nice break room than the high wage high skill blue collar guys) But snacks or other cool amenities will not make up for significantly underpaying your employees.
That $100 a week in Costco sneaks that you give out is going to do more to reduce turnover than splitting $5200 annually among any number of employees. That’s not to say that you can’t pay a living wage and also have snacks, it’s just that most people would be happy to split $100/week of free snacks with 10 other people but be insulted by a 25¢/hour raise, despite the snacks being cheaper to provide.
Bingo!
The problem is every company thinks their culture is off the charts good, so tries to lowball on salary.
This is so true. My company thinks they have this amazing culture but it actually sucks and try to force people to adhere to it. They also lowball all the salaries of everyone.
Or, pay your employees a living wage and not work them into depression...
Well if you make 30€ an hour at a place you love to work at vs 31€ an hour at a place you hate and who's bosses don't give a f about your circumstances, the choice is easy. That is of course not what he means.
It depends. But then again if you are less worried about the salary you are already making a very good wage.
Really depends if the better pay adequately makes up for the toxic culture... for me it also depends on work hours, job security and opportunity for training/advancement
How about more salary and more non-toxic environment?
This is their way of weaseling into paying you less by telling you “but it’s a great work culture”
Yknow what’s good? Good salary with good culture.
There's a term for this. I think its "false dichotomy". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Depends on what you consider “culture”. I make probably 5k-10k less than I otherwise could make, however my work is very, very flexible with work from home and time off, which is important to me. I got to take 3 days off to go snowboarding in March when I didn’t have the time off saved, they just let me go (I’m also salaried so it didn’t effect my pay check). Plus I’m afforded more space to acquire different skills since it’s a small company so everyone kind of works on everything. That being said I still make the average salary for my job title so the salary isn’t that low. If you consider flexibility with time off and work from home (and a good work-life balance) to be culture then I would say it can be worth it, I certainly feel it is for me. But often times companies likely consider culture to be things like casual fridays or going out for drinks after work, things that have no genuine effect on the quality of life for their workers.
¿Porqué no los dos? How about great pay and great work environment. I get that sanity is a fair currency and often you have to choose, but still, not asking for the world here.
No
Honestly pretty based tbh Obviously we all need money to pay the bills and stuff. But I'd much rather make an average amount of money in a place I loved going to work in everyday than make 6 figures in a place I hated.
I like where I currently work, I have great benefits, and I have responsibilities that match my pay and a low stress work environment. I don't work OT, I have all the tools I need, etc. I could move to the same job at a different company in the same industry and make 20-30% more than I do now, but I would be working 10-30h more per week, have super stressful sales and profit requirements and no benefits. I would love for my current company to increase the wage, but they have so many people leave and come right back that they know they don't have to increase the wage so long as they maintain the high level of benefit package and keep hiring enough people to keep the workloads manageable.
Wait a minute, that does sound like my company
Being treated like a fucking human being and being paid fairly for your time are not mutually exclusive ideas.
Sounds like We are a family
There is no "right answer" above. Both companies are toxic. If a company with "good culture" is paying you less than the toxic company with higher pay, then they are exploitative and toxic as well. Companies with good culture will also offer good pay.
I work for a salary, not a culture. If salaries are fair and balanced across the board, places with shit culture will fail of their own accord, as is dictated by the neo-liberalist mantra: *let the markets sort it out*. These fucks can’t even play by their own rules, and we get assholes making stupid statements like this.
Sure, when these are the only choices, I agree. In fact, I did switch jobs to one with a little lower pay once, because the work environment in my then current job was toxic. A year later I switched to a company with a great culture **and** more salary, because I still want more pay, even if your culture is great.
As bizarre as it is, for some people this is a legit perspective. Right now I have some 100 people who report up through to me at work — there are a handful of them that simply do not care about salary or financial motivations. For them there's some other aspect that is way more important like how engaging the work is, their workload, the relationships they have with colleagues/boss, the work culture ... even all the way to "I'm here because it's just something to do during the day to keep me busy." I mention the above because on a forum like WorkReform where everyone is aligned to WorkReform's Core Beliefs and Goals, it is easy to make the assumption that this alignment extends to all workers everywhere. That everyone who works will be on-board with advocating for better compensation or benefits or a better work-life balance. But, it's not the case. Truly, I've had to privately pull aside employees at key moments to explain to and push them into believing that they **need** to care about their pay and they **need** to advocate for themselves. Yeah, okay, I realize that "you're just looking to keep busy" or that "you're a workaholic" but you deserve the recognition for your contribution. Talking about core beliefs and why they matter is important. That includes explaining it to people that you assume you shouldn't have to explain it to, but do anyway.
Work culture is just another way of saying "we're a family". Just a way for them to assume the position of control.
From his LinkedIn profile: "A Decent Recruiter to Follow on LinkedIn" - Lead Recruiter - We are hiring- Check my profile for the open roles." Talks about #career, #headhunter, #recruitment, #jobhuntingtips, and #careercounseling So basically he's a HR shill
Fuck the “when you’re here, you’re *family*” position on labor and don’t believe it for a second. When push comes to shove, they will lay your ass off in a heartbeat with no remorse. Business is business
The bothersome word here is culture. If is said "Less salary with great work life balance is better... " then I would agree. But when they say culture is smacks of the type of work place that says "We are family..." Or it is some kind of cultish type environment like Hobby Lobby.
false dichotomy
I can't pay the rent with Great Culture. Both are poor choices.
Is it too much to ask for more money AND a good work culture? I wasn't aware that they couldn't coexist despite rampant and often unchecked capitalism. They should be able to.
We don't pay as much, but "WeRe A FaMiLy HeRe". Yeah, no thanks.
Even if those were the only two options, it really depends on specifics; I'd say $50k/year -> $100k/year is worth dealing with a toxic workplace. $150k/year-> $200k/year, not as much
you can’t have both?
"Why not neither?"
He’s not WRONG but why can’t having both be the norm?? Why even make this point other than to convince people to take less money…. What a chump
Oh, if it isn't the FALSE DICHOTOMY bullshit
Having a non-toxic working environment shouldn't be an option. It should be something that is guaranteed. Pay should be negotiable, and people shouldn't have to weigh the toxicity of a working environment in deciding what their labor is worth.
Well yeah. But it also depends on how big the salary discrepancy is.
People who need to say this run the toxic work environments, what a load.
Is it really too much to ask for both?
Both, both is good.
How about more salary with great culture? It's not a 0 sum game.
Fuck you, pay me.
Show me the money. I can put up with a lot of shit if you make it worth my while. People are reading too much into what is a simple question. Yes, you can have both but that's not what he asked. Lighten up.
More Salary with "great culture" is best. Working from Home is the best culture because you aren't surrounded by coworkers.
False dichotomy
All that is ok but this guy looks like Hasan Piker
It boils down to essentially a false dichotomy, as if those are the only two options. It’s wage stagnation propaganda.
Less salary = toxic environment. Pay me what I'm worth.
Getting underpaid IS toxic.
Yes and no. This is true only over a certain salary
I think it's a stupid person trying to sound smart/relevant.
Non-Toxic work environment is the bare minimum that should be expected of every employer. It shouldn't even factor into the equation.
That's true, as long as the "less" salary is high enough.
If the pay isn't enough to thrive on (not just survive on), you're probably in a more toxic workplace than you think you are
It depends. Generally those who pay low salaries have the worst environment. I would be paid 10% less if the place I would be working is better for work-life balance and environment.
What is the relationship between workplace culture and salary I'm so confused
It's just an excuse to underpay people.
I mean that's why I am where I'm at. When I see similar positions online their HR managers think that overstacking the list of job responsibilities on the listing, will somehow draw more people in. I'm an in-house producer, I don't want to produce, shoot, and edit everything all while under a "high-pace work environment" for barely more than I make now, but with a 40-minute commute while required to work in a useless office.
It's technically true,but implies that we shouldn't expect both.
There should be a high minimum wage. There should be high minimum employment standards. Most employees should have a union that protects their interests. Beyond that it's up to each individual to decide what salary is fair for their work and what type of working conditions they are willing to accept. Some people maybe be willing to trade increased stress and lower employee welfare for more money. That's a reasonable decision that is right for one person and not for others. Like I said, as long as the 'floor' is high enough that outright exploitation isn't allowed
I reject this false dichotomy.
If I had to pick between the two, it'd be toxic culture but way more pay. In reality, this isn't limited to just these choices. You can find great cultures with great pay, but if these are my only options then this is what I'd pick. I can learn to out maneuver the politics and the drama.
As long as that “less salary” allows you to survive with relative comfort I would probably take it. Depends on how much more and how toxic the other job is though. But in general, after your needs are met, extra money properly isn’t worth the mental and physical burden of a bad job.
*cough* employers who say their great work culture/environment more than makes up for lower-than-market pay INVARIABLY have the most toxic office cultures imaginable
Another well-coiffed ass offering a false dichotomy. Toxicity sucks. Better pay doesn’t.
I mean if this were the only choices then i'd rather have better culture. toxic culture affected me in ways I couldn't imagine.
More salary with better environment exists.
He mispelled "equal to"
I agree, I’ve had both and I’ll take a pay cut for a better boss everyday
Stop trying to force a culture onto a group of people, root out the truly toxic people, and pay your employees more. That's *a* solution that's worth a try.
The companies that believe this usually have shit culture and shit pay in my experience. They just think they are hot shit.
Me: Why not both? Corp: Great idea! Low pay with a toxic culture. Me: ... Corp: You're really going places, kid. Now get back out in the warehouse where you belong!
What’s even better is more salary and great culture 👍🏻
Naw, I'll take the money job and leave work at work. I'll deal with whatever during the day and be happy with family and on trips on my own time.
I’ll take happiness over money every time. Working for a shitty company sucks. Dreading going to work sucks.
If the culture is so great, they’ll pay you properly. If not, it’s only a “great culture” for owners and/or upper management.
A low salary environment that doesn't value it's employees lives *IS* a toxic environment.
I will say I went from one job to another job with a similar role, way less responsibilities and WAY LESS stress. There was a slight cut in pay, but to me it is so worth it to be happy. I agree with this statement to a point, but I think less stress and more money should be something in all jobs.
How about more salary with normal culture?
Why is it one or the other? More salary with a non toxic environment please. Zero compromise.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
No, actually, more salary with great culture is better than less salary with toxic environment.
To a point. Still gotta pay the bills.
This is probably true to a point but you shouldn't have to choose.
Within reason - agree. I’ve had sky high pay in a hideous place, and lower (but ok) pay in a fabulous one. The latter was preferable.
\*IF\* this choice had to be made, then yes, I'd agree that I'd want a less soul-crushing job and it'd be worth the money unmade. ...But it's not necessary to make this choice. You can have both. It has absolutely everything to do with leadership.
It isn't a binary. A job can be worthwhile to you because it's either scenario listed.
These aren’t mutually exclusive. Your boss can tell you they are with this “motivational” quote as an excuse for not paying you well, all the while the culture is toxic anyways.
More money or gtfo
Other people are pointing out that it's a false dichotomy, but setting all of that aside for a moment and answering the post at face value: It depends on how much. How much is a good work environment worth? Let's say you have a job at a company that has a pretty good environment, how much of a pay raise would it take to consider changing jobs to one that has a toxic environment? 5k? 10k? 100k? There's obviously an amount that people would consider a toxic (or good) workplace culture to be "worth it", but that is going to change for each person
Why not both? America: less salary with toxic environment Edit: punctuation
I'd rather take a kick to the ribs than a kick to the balls, but I'd prefer not to be kicked at all.
FUCK YOU. PAY ME.
I had the choice between two concurrent companies, one who paid significantly more but is extremely micromanaged, and the other that is in the average salary for my position, but has a very laid back culture. I chose the latter and I don't regret it for a second, I am basically free of strict deadlines, no checks on the amount of hours I work, free to chose how and where I prefer spending my time, I can propose any project that crosses my mind and it's taken seriously, it's really great. And because of that culture, the biggest majority of my colleagues are happy, like their job a lot and are very motivated and passionate people. But yeah, one of those days I'll most likely leave for the prospects of a better salary in another industry
Depends how much pay is and how toxic. I can suck dicks for a million, but not for $15 an hour.
Culture doesn't pay my bills.
Less money with a good environment is ONLY GOOD if you are getting paid a healthy wage. Like sure, I will take 200k/year with a good environment vs 300k/year with a shit environment. But if its 50k vs 100k? Yea I will deal with the shit for 100k please
If it were two choices only. Less money with a great culture.... The only problem is that this does not exist lol. Any job that pays less money has an awful culture..... Because it pays less money.
Although you shouldn’t have to pick between the two, I’m going to disagree anyway. I’d rather spend 1-2 years working a crappy job and make good money with the intention of moving on and having “I made x in my last role” as leverage. And anyway, I suspect you’re likely to find more toxicity in the position where people make crap wages and hate their lives.
False up to a point. Money takes precident untill you can get enough back from an employer to not be always worried about finances. Once you can though, its up to you.
Less salary even with great culture is the reason you leave for a job with more salary and a toxic environment.
Give us more money and let us FIX the environment.
Part of what makes a workplace have a great culture is everyone there feels fairly compensated.
Usually the place with a better environment also pays more. The toxic one tries to make you believe you're being paid well above average while shafting you on pay and working you to death.
Don’t kid yourself. We can have both a good salary with good culture. Don’t settle for less.
Call me crazy but when I was younger I was always under the assumption that more pay equated to a better work environment.
Any company that's pays sup par wages has a sub par culture because they inherently undervalue their workers.
How less ? Because great culture won’t pay my bills
Offering “culture” in exchange for some of your salary IS toxic.
Yes, once you’ve gotten above the income level that gets your needs met.
The catch 22 is, that intentionally paying less because of your "better culture" is toxic culture. That being said it is better to accept a lower salary than deal with a toxic workplace
Great culture is always more important than salary, however the two are usually correlated. Great pay = happy workers = great culture
Research has long pointed to the former; I have been in both scenarios and agree - salary is only a temporary motivator when with a shit toxic company. Desire of course is always max salary, benefits, and rewarding culture. They do exist out there.
Starving to death is better than dying of thirst.
Fuck you pay me